Come on... Luis Terrero over Brian Anderson? Give me a break. I really hope this is Tribune nonsense, but sometimes I think Ozzie's got it out for Brian.

This is clearly tribune nonsense, because if this was really the case, the SOX would have also traded for a backup CF as well just to solidify that spot.

veeter

03-14-2007, 06:13 AM

Well Ozzie, it's hard to make the team when you never play him. Lately, when he has played, he's hit very well. Only to have Mackowiak out there the next day. The whole pitching and defense first thing, (that won us a championship), is out the window, IMO. Thome and Rob, the two guys that kind of brought us back to the early 2000's style.

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 06:17 AM

Well Ozzie, it's hard to make the team when you never play him. Lately, when he has played, he's hit very well. Only to have Mackowiak out there the next day. The whole pitching and defense first thing, (that won us a championship), is out the window, IMO. Thome and Rob, the two guys that kind of brought us back to the early 2000's style.

If any reporters were worth their salt down in AZ, we'd be hearing if BA is possibly playing in a lot of B games. That would actually give him more ABs and work than playing in the regular games. If this is the case, then I am cool with it. If he is simply not playing, then that sucks. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with having Jim Thome on this team.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 06:59 AM

Come on... Luis Terrero over Brian Anderson? Give me a break. I really hope this is Tribune nonsense, but sometimes I think Ozzie's got it out for Brian.

Agreed. Terrero has been having an excellent Spring Training but let's get real here.

Come on... Luis Terrero over Brian Anderson? Give me a break. I really hope this is Tribune nonsense, but sometimes I think Ozzie's got it out for Brian.
Are you kidding? This is the first time in a long time that the Trib actually used a quote instead of splicing together other quotes and jumping to their own baseless conclusion, making it look like someone said something they didn't.
This is common sense here. Brian is a kid, and he needs to play every day. If he isn't starting, he should be at Triple A getting better. Sitting him on the bench isn't going to help his progression. That being said, I hope he gets the job. We are a lot better with Erstad on the bench than starting.

Come on... Luis Terrero over Brian Anderson? Give me a break. I really hope this is Tribune nonsense, but sometimes I think Ozzie's got it out for Brian.

Of course Ozzie has it out for BA. Wouldn't you? He has shown so far that he can't hit, he's an underachiever, and there's been reports that he doesn't have his head on straight, and might be a little on the arrogant side as well.

The way it looks right now he might be headed down the same road as McCarthy: Can't-miss prospect who's head was in the clouds that fell out of favor with Sox management.

Jaffar

03-14-2007, 08:11 AM

Are you kidding? This is the first time in a long time that the Trib actually used a quote instead of splicing together other quotes and jumping to their own baseless conclusion, making it look like someone said something they didn't.
This is common sense here. Brian is a kid, and he needs to play every day. If he isn't starting, he should be at Triple A getting better. Sitting him on the bench isn't going to help his progression. That being said, I hope he gets the job. We are a lot better with Erstad on the bench than starting.

That is how I feel about spring training this year. He can't win the job sitting on the bench. He had a good game Friday going 1-3 with a homer and a walk, then doesn't play Saturday, Sunday he goes 2-2 with a walk and get's pulled in the 7th for a pinch runner and then doesn't play the next 2 days.

Madvora

03-14-2007, 08:15 AM

Tererro is out of options and must clear waivers for the Sox to keep him (if he doesn't make the major league team.) I don't like the idea of a guy just making the team because of that. If he clearly outplays Anderson, then the job should be his, but I hope they don't put too much emphasis on this waiver thing.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 08:21 AM

Of course Ozzie has it out for BA. Wouldn't you? He has shown so far that he can't hit, he's an underachiever, and there's been reports that he doesn't have his head on straight, and might be a little on the arrogant side as well.

The way it looks right now he might be headed down the same road as McCarthy: Can't-miss prospect who's head was in the clouds that fell out of favor with Sox management.

He didn't hit well in his rookie campaign and these means he is an "underachiever"? He has Gold Glove-caliber defense and Walker has indicated he has greatly improved his swing. Plus, his salary is less than $400k.

Please point me toward these "reports" that he doesn't have his head on straight.

TomBradley72

03-14-2007, 08:33 AM

This is common sense here. Brian is a kid, and he needs to play every day. If he isn't starting, he should be at Triple A getting better. Sitting him on the bench isn't going to help his progression. That being said, I hope he gets the job. We are a lot better with Erstad on the bench than starting.

Exactly...Ozzie's point is that BA needs to play every day SOMEWHERE to complete his development...if he's not starting for the WSox he'll start with Charlotte until he proves he belongs in the majors for good.

There's also some motivational messaging going on here from Ozzie...letting BA know he has to earn it. Terrero's career stats are not impressive...but I've heard multiple sources describe him as one of the "surpises" of the spring and he was once a top prospect for AZ...so he could be a decent role player.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 08:38 AM

He didn't hit well in his rookie campaign and these means he is an "underachiever"? He has Gold Glove-caliber defense and Walker has indicated he has greatly improved his swing. Plus, his salary is less than $400k.

Please point me toward these "reports" that he doesn't have his head on straight.

There has been talk that BA has been linked to some of McCarthy's bad behavior. Alot of the things going around have been just rumors but, if they're true I can see why he's in Ozzie's doghouse and why he is percieved this way.

Maybe I should put it in big writing so some of you understand:

BRIAN ANDERSON DOES NOT = GRADY SIZEMORE

The way some of you talk about him on here, he is the second coming of Sizemore or Joe Crede.

You say he should get a ton of playing time. Playing time on a veteran team with World Series aspirations is EARNED. That's one of the mistakes the Sox made with him last year. They handed him the job when they probably should've eased him in slowly.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 08:55 AM

There has been talk that BA has been linked to some of McCarthy's bad behavior. Alot of the things going around have been just rumors but, if they're true I can see why he's in Ozzie's doghouse and why he is percieved this way.

Maybe I should put it in big writing so some of you understand:

BRIAN ANDERSON DOES NOT = GRADY SIZEMORE

The way some of you talk about him on here, he is the second coming of Sizemore or Joe Crede.

You say he should get a ton of playing time. Playing time on a veteran team with World Series aspirations is EARNED. That's one of the mistakes the Sox made with him last year. They handed him the job when they probably should've eased him in slowly.

They way you talk about him, he is the second coming of Joe Borchard...oh wait, you've said that before.

The way I see it is that BA has the potential to have a nice long career in CF if he just hits a little. I doubt that he'll do it with the White Sox because I don't think he can ever get out of Ozzie's doghouse no matter what he does on the field.

They way you talk about him, he is the second coming of Joe Borchard...oh wait, you've said that before.

:rolleyes:

I'll never understand all of the Brian Anderson man-love on here that's all. He hasn't earned such respect and adoration thus far. If anything he has disappointed.

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 09:10 AM

The way some of you talk about him on here, he is the second coming of . . . Joe Crede.

You may want to take a look at Joe's stats for his first several years. His glove kept him on the field. BA may or may not become an above average MLB player, but the comparison to Crede is not a bad one at all at this stage.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 09:18 AM

You may want to take a look at Joe's stats for his first several years. His glove kept him on the field. BA may or may not become an above average MLB player, but the comparison to Crede is not a bad one at all at this stage.

Joe Crede is nothing. He will be a flash in the pan third baseman prospect the likes of Kevin Bell.

AuroraSoxFan

03-14-2007, 09:19 AM

I'll never understand all of the Brian Anderson man-love on here that's all. He hasn't earned such respect and adoration thus far. If anything he has disappointed.

I agree to a point. I'm not a die hard fan of his or anything. His glove is impressive. His bat is clearly not. I just think he deserves a chance. They never really let him play consistently last year and it seems to be the case this year in ST as well. Only way we will ever know if he can bat above 230-240 is to have him play for an extended period.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 09:21 AM

You may want to take a look at Joe's stats for his first several years. His glove kept him on the field. BA may or may not become an above average MLB player, but the comparison to Crede is not a bad one at all at this stage.

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-love because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be good all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we didn't need Rowand."

Sad

03-14-2007, 09:21 AM

Exactly...Ozzie's point is that BA needs to play every day SOMEWHERE to complete his development...if he's not starting for the WSox he'll start with Charlotte until he proves he belongs in the majors for good.

There's also some motivational messaging going on here from Ozzie...letting BA know he has to earn it. Terrero's career stats are not impressive...but I've heard multiple sources describe him as one of the "surpises" of the spring and he was once a top prospect for AZ...so he could be a decent role player.

no way man... it's yet another Cubune conspiracy theory... :rolleyes:

brother...

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 09:23 AM

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-love because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be good all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we didn't need Rowand."

I suspect this has very little to do with it. People simply see an above average defensive CF who had success with the bat in the minor leagues. Just like they saw an above average defensive 3rd baseman who also had success with the bat in the minor leagues struggle for a few years before becoming an integral part of our offense. There are no guarantees, but the comparison of the two players is not a bad one at all.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 09:28 AM

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-love because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be good all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we didn't need Rowand."

Bull****. It has nothing to do with being "anti-Aaron Rowand". It has everything to do with Anderson demonstrating the batting skills at the minor league level and not getting an everyday chance to prove himself at the major league level. The glove is a non-issue as he has already demonstrated that at the major-league level. Until he gets the chance to play on an everyday level, I'm not ready to give up on him yet.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 09:28 AM

Joe Crede is nothing. He will be a flash in the pan third baseman prospect the likes of Kevin Bell.

For every diamond in the rough the Sox find there's 10 players who flop. What I'm trying to say is the Joe Credes, Magglio Ordonezes and Carlos Lees are in the minority. A vast majority fail.

BA as of right now is showing that he belongs in the majority who don't succeed.

I hope he succeeds. I just can't justify putting all of my eggs in his basket right now like others have.

INSox56

03-14-2007, 09:31 AM

He played ONE FRIGGIN YEAR so far. And actually hit pretty damn well for 2-3 months of the season last year. Some people need to get a grip and give people some breaks for christ sake. Not every player can be ****ing Ryan Howard their rookie seasons. His D was better than almost any other CF in the game and he hit like **** his rookie season...string him up! *****

russ99

03-14-2007, 09:37 AM

Honestly, I don't see the great defensive player everyone else sees in Anderson just yet. Sure he has good range, gets great jumps on the ball and has a plus arm, but he plays his position, and that's it. Don't hand him a Gold Glove just yet.

Rarely last season did I see the kind of covering for his teammates from Anderson last year that Rowand did in 2005 on a daily basis. Did he range over to left and take a play or make throws for Pods? Did he cover the alleys on every play for Dye? Did he grab one going over the fence? Hmm, I recall Mackowiak doing that, but not Anderson.

Maybe this is man-love for Rowand, but the Sox would be better served this season if they had Aaron back (or possibly Erstad if the Phils price is too high) taking it for the team in center and hitting at a major league level. Not to say either of these guys are all-stars, but they're gamers, good clubhouse guys and have tons of major league experience.

I do think the Sox have a great prospect in Anderson, but like every other Sox outfield prospect lately, MLB hitting is the issue. Maybe one day, Sweeney will break that mold. Anderson should play every day in the minors and really refine his game, be ready if needed as an injury sub and get ready to compete for (not be handed) a job in 2008.

For every diamond in the rough the Sox find there's 10 players who flop. What I'm trying to say is the Joe Credes, Magglio Ordonezes and Carlos Lees are in the minority. A vast majority fail.

BA as of right now is showing that he belongs in the majority who don't succeed.

I hope he succeeds. I just can't justify putting all of my eggs in his basket right now like others have.

People aren't comparing BA with Magglio and Lee because they were successful out of the gate at the Major League level. People use the Crede comparison because he was a .255 hitter stretching over 6 seasons before breaking out in the playoffs of 2005. With your logic Joe Crede would have been gone after 2004 if not sooner.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 09:45 AM

People aren't comparing BA with Magglio and Lee because they were successful out of the gate at the Major League level. People use the Crede comparison because he was a .255 hitter stretching over 6 seasons before breaking out in the playoffs of 2005. With your logic Joe Crede would have been gone after 2004 if not sooner.

I'm not saying to dump BA. But, I'm not saying that he deserves to be the starting CF right now on a team with WS hopes. Maybe AAA would help him a little.

So because Crede was a late bloomer are we supposed to hang onto every struggling prospect for too long? Crede is the only one who panned out.

If we follow the Crede logic and give every prospect more time than he deserves then the Sox would've hung onto Liefer, Abbott, Christensen, Caruso, and Borchard for longer than they really deserved.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 09:48 AM

He played ONE FRIGGIN YEAR so far. And actually hit pretty damn well for 2-3 months of the season last year. Some people need to get a grip and give people some breaks for christ sake. Not every player can be ****ing Ryan Howard their rookie seasons. His D was better than almost any other CF in the game and he hit like **** his rookie season...string him up! *****

The point is, We're a veteran team with high hopes. We're looking to go WS or bust. Teams like the Phillies and Indians were able to start young players because they had nothing to lose.

BA doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Ryan Howard.

If you want to start BA in CF in say, 2008 when there looks to be plenty of roster turnover anyway, then be my guest.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 09:56 AM

Honestly, I don't see the great defensive player everyone else sees in Anderson just yet. Sure he has good range, gets great jumps on the ball and has a plus arm, but he plays his position, and that's it. Don't hand him a Gold Glove just yet.

If you don't see Anderson as a great defensive centerfielder, than you aren't looking hard enough.

Rarely last season did I see the kind of covering for his teammates from Anderson last year that Rowand did in 2005 on a daily basis. Did he range over to left and take a play or make throws for Pods? Did he cover the alleys on every play for Dye? Did he grab one going over the fence? Hmm, I recall Mackowiak doing that, but not Anderson.

Anderson should have been "calling the shots" in the outfield (as any centerfielder should) but as a rookie, he wasn't given the respect he deserved by the vetrans (i.e. Dye). Remember all the times those guys nearly bumped into each other? As for making leaping catches over the fence, that is a matter of circumstance more than anything else. If no shots hit to Anderson had a chance of being grabbed over the fence, how can he be judged on that (extremely minor) part of the game?

Maybe this is man-love for Rowand, but the Sox would be better served this season if they had Aaron back (or possibly Erstad if the Phils price is too high) taking it for the team in center and hitting at a major league level. Not to say either of these guys are all-stars, but they're gamers, good clubhouse guys and have tons of major league experience.

Yes, this is Rowand man-love.

I do think the Sox have a great prospect in Anderson, but like every other Sox outfield prospect lately, MLB hitting is the issue. Maybe one day, Sweeney will break that mold. Anderson should play every day in the minors and really refine his game, be ready if needed as an injury sub and get ready to compete for (not be handed) a job in 2008.

Anderson has pretty much accomplished all that he can in the minors. Its time to play with the big boys or go home.

soxfan13

03-14-2007, 09:57 AM

This is by no means me giving up on BA. I think he is going to be one helluva a player, but if he is not the starter I see no reason on him riding the bench and coming in as a defensive replacement and only 3 or 4 at bats a week. It would be much better for BA IMO to start down at AAA and play everyday and work on his swing even more.

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 09:59 AM

The point is, We're a veteran team with high hopes. We're looking to go WS or bust. Teams like the Phillies and Indians were able to start young players because they had nothing to lose.

BA doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Ryan Howard.

If you want to start BA in CF in say, 2008 when there looks to be plenty of roster turnover anyway, then be my guest.

By this logic, young players should only be allowed to break into the major leagues on teams not trying to contend? That's absurd. And where is this roster turnover coming from in 2008? By my count, the following players are already under contract for the 2008 season (or controlled by the Sox):

What you're failing to see is that no one is sitting here saying that BA should be allowed to play every day in the big leagues if he hits .200 for a couple of months. But to write him off b/c of his rookie season at the plate is short-sighted. If he wins the job, great. But you seem intent on not even allowing him a chance to win the job, when he will be the best option defensively, hands down, that this organization has. For that reason alone he deserves a shot at the regular CF job.

delben91

03-14-2007, 10:00 AM

So because Crede was a late bloomer are we supposed to hang onto every struggling prospect for too long? Crede is the only one who panned out.

:jon
"Hi there."

thedudeabides

03-14-2007, 10:02 AM

This is by no means me giving up on BA. I think he is going to be one helluva a player, but if he is not the starter I see no reason on him riding the bench and coming in as a defensive replacement and only 3 or 4 at bats a week. It would be much better for BA IMO to start down at AAA and play everyday and work on his swing even more.

I believe that is all Ozzie is eluding to, and it makes sense. That's all I'm reading into it.

SoxfaninLA

03-14-2007, 10:03 AM

. People use the Crede comparison because he was a .255 hitter stretching over 6 seasons before breaking out in the playoffs of 2005. With your logic Joe Crede would have been gone after 2004 if not sooner.

I don't think the Crede comparison fits as well with Anderson as people would like it to. In the minors Crede was a Carolina League and Southern League MVP and a two time White Sox minor league player of the year. While I understand that Anderson was drafted out of college and was therefore on a much faster career track than Joe, Crede was a very accomplished player in the minors, and I think that is a big reason why Crede got so much rope in the majors. I think that kind of time will not be granted to every prospect that the White Sox bring up.

I want Anderson to succeed, but I can't help but think that more time in the minors would have helped him last year, and can still help him this year. I think if Mackowiak could have played a real CF and not been a blooper reel out there last year then Anderson would have been sent down after being one of the worst offensive players in the majors the first 2 months. The fact of the matter is we were forced to keep Anderson because we literally had no one else to take his place, no matter how many times Ozzie tried to fit that square peg in that round hole (Rob M.)

I want Anderson to be the everyday CF, but he didn't earn it last year, he was a horrendous offensive player. I don't want Erstad as the everyday centerfielder, the guy is too injury prone. I would rather have him platooning with Pods and playing center once a week. I know Terrero has washed out some other places but if he is performing better than Anderson than he deserves a shot in the big show. Anderson can be sent to Charlotte and that is only going to help him, not hurt him. If Terrero is in Chicago and is batting .200 after 4 weeks and is a disaster in the field, then we can call BA up and give it another shot.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 10:08 AM

By this logic, young players should only be allowed to break into the major leagues on teams not trying to contend? That's absurd. And where is this roster turnover coming from in 2008? By my count, the following players are already under contract for the 2008 season (or controlled by the Sox):

What you're failing to see is that no one is sitting here saying that BA should be allowed to play every day in the big leagues if he hits .200 for a couple of months. But to write him off b/c of his rookie season at the plate is short-sighted. If he wins the job, great. But you seem intent on not even allowing him a chance to win the job, when he will be the best option defensively, hands down, that this organization has. For that reason alone he deserves a shot at the regular CF job.

There looks to be a high number of players who will have a SIGNIFICANT shot at a roster spot next season.

Sweeney, Fields, Danks, Gio Gonzalez, Who will they replace?? Buehrle, Crede and/or Pods, and Dye. Iguchi is also not under contract for 2008.

when you're looking at possibly replacing 5 regulars on your team I think that qualifies as a roster turnover.

I'm NOT saying don't start young players on a veteran team. I'm saying start young players who show more promise than BA on a veteran team like Robinson Cano or Melky Cabrera....or if the Sox had a player the caliber of Ryan Howard in the minors.

Don't start a "project" like BA.

southsideirish71

03-14-2007, 10:08 AM

:jon
"Hi there."

Robin Ventura 1989 .179BA
1990 .249BA

I wonder how loved Robin would of been his first 2 years. The same people calling for Brians head would of had him demoted, or traded by now.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 10:09 AM

:jon
"Hi there."

Point taken.

Jaffar

03-14-2007, 10:17 AM

I don't think the Crede comparison fits as well with Anderson as people would like it to. In the minors Crede was a Carolina League and Southern League MVP and a two time White Sox minor league player of the year. While I understand that Anderson was drafted out of college and was therefore on a much faster career track than Joe, Crede was a very accomplished player in the minors, and I think that is a big reason why Crede got so much rope in the majors. I think that kind of time will not be granted to every prospect that the White Sox bring up.

I want Anderson to succeed, but I can't help but think that more time in the minors would have helped him last year, and can still help him this year. I think if Mackowiak could have played a real CF and not been a blooper reel out there last year then Anderson would have been sent down after being one of the worst offensive players in the majors the first 2 months. The fact of the matter is we were forced to keep Anderson because we literally had no one else to take his place, no matter how many times Ozzie tried to fit that square peg in that round hole (Rob M.)

I want Anderson to be the everyday CF, but he didn't earn it last year, he was a horrendous offensive player. I don't want Erstad as the everyday centerfielder, the guy is too injury prone. I would rather have him platooning with Pods and playing center once a week. I know Terrero has washed out some other places but if he is performing better than Anderson than he deserves a shot in the big show. Anderson can be sent to Charlotte and that is only going to help him, not hurt him. If Terrero is in Chicago and is batting .200 after 4 weeks and is a disaster in the field, then we can call BA up and give it another shot.

I don't think I have personally made the comparison myself but I was trying to justify why others do. I agree that Anderson would need to earn the spot but if you look at stats he has done so in spring to this point. There is still plenty of spring ball to be played but Anderson doesn't seem to be getting the chance to prove himself this spring almost as if it's pre-determined that he will start at AAA no matter what his spring stats are.

Hitmen77

03-14-2007, 10:20 AM

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-love because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be good all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we didn't need Rowand."

By your logic, we should be accusing you of completely giving up on BA after only his rookie season because you want to say "you knew all along he was going to fail".

Here, let me fix your statement for you since that logic cuts both ways:

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-hate because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be a failure all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we need Rowand."

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 10:20 AM

I don't think I have personally made the comparison myself but I was trying to justify why others do. I agree that Anderson would need to earn the spot but if you look at stats he has done so in spring to this point. There is still plenty of spring ball to be played but Anderson doesn't seem to be getting the chance to prove himself this spring almost as if it's pre-determined that he will start at AAA no matter what his spring stats are.

No one here seems to have any knowledge of Anderson's activity in B games. He may very well be spending his "off" days getting 6 or 7 ABs in a B game. Most teams won't start playing their starters for 6+ innings for another week or so. In the mean time, guys do not play in the main games every day. Normally, I'd say that Anderson should be playing more in the main games, but after reading about Thome's experience using the B games to better prepare himself for the season, I think it's plausible for BA to be spending more time now getting more ABs in those types of games. The problem is, no one seems to be reporting if BA is actually participating in those games.

krohnjw

03-14-2007, 10:20 AM

up.
I want Anderson to succeed, but I can't help but think that more time in the minors would have helped him last year, and can still help him this year. I

I think ultimately having Anderson up last year will work out well and keeping him down would only have delayed what happened last year. Walker himself stated that Anderson had an issue with his swing but was using his athleticism to muscle through it in the minors...and it worked. It did not work quite as well against major league pitching. They have since made adjustments to his swing to correct this...time will tell if they work out.

If he had continued at the minors last year I think we would be hard pressed to say those changes would have been made, and he would only keep putting up the same types of numbers with a flawed swing only to find the same issues when he was finally called up based on potential and numbers put up in AAA.

Now, with that being said, if we do break with Terrero/Erstad in CF he may benefit from a stint in the minors to work on the changes in his swing that were implemented to make sure he is ready to play at the major league level when we finally do need him up here/want him up here.

I do hope he gets his chance though to prove his worth instead of playing 1 out of 3 days for the rest of the spring. It would be a shame to not give him a shot if he has indeed successfully corrected his swing.

edit: Link to the article if anyone has not read it: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070222&content_id=1812114&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

munchman33

03-14-2007, 10:27 AM

They way you talk about him, he is the second coming of Joe Borchard...oh wait, you've said that before.

:rolleyes:

Well, he certainly hits like Borchard...

Thome25

03-14-2007, 10:28 AM

If you look in the recent thread about Rowand possibly coming from the Phillies, you'd see that I don't have Rowand man-love by any means.

But, didn't everybody's favorite CF (Rowand) benefit from being sent back down? He came back up hitting the cover off the ball.

Maybe BA would do the same. Perhaps people on here shouldn't be comparing BA's situation with Crede's and comparing it more to Rowand's.

Maybe a stint in the minors would help BA the same way it helped Rowand.

Rowand was strong defensively in CF (though not as strong as BA.) and couldn't hit early on either.

INSox56

03-14-2007, 10:31 AM

The point is, We're a veteran team with high hopes. We're looking to go WS or bust. Teams like the Phillies and Indians were able to start young players because they had nothing to lose.

BA doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Ryan Howard.

If you want to start BA in CF in say, 2008 when there looks to be plenty of roster turnover anyway, then be my guest.

As Ozzie himself said last year "if we have to rely on Brian Anderson's bat, we're really in trouble'.

jabrch

03-14-2007, 10:32 AM

Maybe I should put it in big writing so some of you understand:

BRIAN ANDERSON DOES NOT = GRADY SIZEMORE

He's a worlds better defensive CF than Sizemore. He's got a history of hitting in the minors better than Sizemore. He's not the hitter that Sizemore is yet - but he's got the talent.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 10:37 AM

As Ozzie himself said last year "if we have to rely on Brian Anderson's bat, we're really in trouble'.

...and that's why the team is stocked with guys like Konerko, Dye, Thome, etc. Anderson is not the lynchpin to the offense and if Ozzie feels he has to rely on his bat, then Ozzie has far bigger problems.

Jaffar

03-14-2007, 10:39 AM

No one here seems to have any knowledge of Anderson's activity in B games. He may very well be spending his "off" days getting 6 or 7 ABs in a B game. Most teams won't start playing their starters for 6+ innings for another week or so. In the mean time, guys do not play in the main games every day. Normally, I'd say that Anderson should be playing more in the main games, but after reading about Thome's experience using the B games to better prepare himself for the season, I think it's plausible for BA to be spending more time now getting more ABs in those types of games. The problem is, no one seems to be reporting if BA is actually participating in those games.

Very true. It is hard to judge what is going on when we don't have all the facts. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the next couple weeks.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 10:41 AM

If you look in the recent thread about Rowand possibly coming from the Phillies, you'd see that I don't have Rowand man-love by any means.

But, didn't everybody's favorite CF (Rowand) benefit from being sent back down? He came back up hitting the cover off the ball.

Maybe BA would do the same. Perhaps people on here shouldn't be comparing BA's situation with Crede's and comparing it more to Rowand's.

Maybe a stint in the minors would help BA the same way it helped Rowand.

Rowand was strong defensively in CF (though not as strong as BA.) and couldn't hit early on either.

But Rowand never really had great minor numbers. And after he was brought back up in 2003, he wasn't anything special. 2004 was his breakout season. If you look at the numbers, 2005 wasn't anything to write home about and 2006 wasn't either.

INSox56

03-14-2007, 10:42 AM

...and that's why the team is stocked with guys like Konerko, Dye, Thome, etc. Anderson is not the lynchpin to the offense and if Ozzie feels he has to rely on his bat, then Ozzie has far bigger problems.
And that's why I don't understand why Ozzie was always getting down on him last year (and who knows, maybe this year as well). I guess someone had to be the scapegoat for a ****ty season. :dunno: Whatever the reasoning was, I didn't like his hippocracy, especially since Ozzie never gave him a chance to play really consistently. I wish someone would have come up with a blooper compilation video of Rob in CF complete with Benny Hill music...show that to Ozzie.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 10:44 AM

But Rowand never really had great minor numbers. And after he was brought back up in 2003, he wasn't anything special. 2004 was his breakout season. If you look at the numbers, 2005 wasn't anything to write home about and 2006 wasn't either.

Good point. But, if BA can at the very least be a serviceable hitter like Rowand was during his career with the Sox AND play great defense, then I think alot of fans would be satisfied.

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 10:46 AM

Good point. But, if BA can at the very least be a serviceable hitter like Rowand was during his career with the Sox AND play great defense, then I think alot of fans would be satisfied.

I think this is the exact point most of us are making. BA does not need to be a world beater at the plate this year. If he is serviceable, then he is worth playing every day.

EDIT: It'd also be nice if he got a little better at throwing to the right base. He missed that a few times too many for my liking last year. But that's easily correctable.

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 10:46 AM

Good point. But, if BA can at the very least be a serviceable hitter like Rowand was during his career with the Sox AND play great defense, then I think alot of fans would be satisfied.

If Anderson could hit like Rowand and still maintain his defense, EVERY fan should be satisfied, especially since he is so cheap.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 10:47 AM

And that's why I don't understand why Ozzie was always getting down on him last year (and who knows, maybe this year as well). I guess someone had to be the scapegoat for a ****ty season. :dunno: Whatever the reasoning was, I didn't like his hippocracy, especially since Ozzie never gave him a chance to play really consistently. I wish someone would have come up with a blooper compilation video of Rob in CF complete with Benny Hill music...show that to Ozzie.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again: all we know as fans is what goes on ON THE FIELD and in media interviews. For all we know BA is a nice kid, or he could be a wise-ass, punk, ******* kid who doesn't listen to Ozzie or the other coaches.

If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt it's Ozzie.

balke

03-14-2007, 10:52 AM

If Pods isn't stealing a a high rate after his surgery, I think he'll be the one visiting AAA.

SoxfaninLA

03-14-2007, 10:54 AM

I don't think I have personally made the comparison myself but I was trying to justify why others do. I agree that Anderson would need to earn the spot but if you look at stats he has done so in spring to this point. There is still plenty of spring ball to be played but Anderson doesn't seem to be getting the chance to prove himself this spring almost as if it's pre-determined that he will start at AAA no matter what his spring stats are.

He is playing well this spring, which is very encouraging. I think everyone can agree the best case scenario for the Sox is that Anderson is with the big club all year and manages to hit at least .250 with some power, plays great defense, and makes smart plays on the basepaths. If he is performing this spring there is no doubt in my mind that he will be in Chicago opening day.

I think some people, not you necessarily but lots of people, think Ozzie has this vendetta against Anderson. I really don't think that is the case, I think Ozzie expects players to give 100% all the time, and I don't think anyone wants guys that don't. I am not saying Anderson is not giving 100% when he is on the field, because he seems to care and gives it his all in the field, but if the stories of him out partying all night with Brandon are true, then I guarantee then he was not showing up to the game the next day in the best possible shape to play sometimes, and actions like that from a young guy who has proven nothing in this league are going to piss Ozzie off. When Ozzie says the things he says about the guy, I think he is just trying to light a fire under him and get Brian to be the best player possible.

SoxfaninLA

03-14-2007, 10:57 AM

No one here seems to have any knowledge of Anderson's activity in B games. He may very well be spending his "off" days getting 6 or 7 ABs in a B game. Most teams won't start playing their starters for 6+ innings for another week or so. In the mean time, guys do not play in the main games every day. Normally, I'd say that Anderson should be playing more in the main games, but after reading about Thome's experience using the B games to better prepare himself for the season, I think it's plausible for BA to be spending more time now getting more ABs in those types of games. The problem is, no one seems to be reporting if BA is actually participating in those games.

Agreed, there is no knowledge of his participation in the B games. Walker has talked about how they made some changes and rebuilt his swing, perhaps they decided that the best place for him to do that is in the B games. I don't think they are intentionally burying Anderson or pre-determined he is going to Charlotte.

jabrch

03-14-2007, 10:58 AM

If Anderson could hit like Rowand and still maintain his defense, EVERY fan should be satisfied, especially since he is so cheap.

Anderson hit well in college.
Anderson hit well in Rookie ball.
Anderson hit well in A ball.
Anderson hit well in AAA ball.
Anderson hit well in July and August in the majors.
Anderson is hitting well right now in Spring Training.

Rowand hit well in 2004, in AAA and in Rookie ball.

BA has all the tools and all the talent to be a more productive hitter than Rowand.

KRS1

03-14-2007, 10:58 AM

Tererro is out of options and must clear waivers for the Sox to keep him (if he doesn't make the major league team.) I don't like the idea of a guy just making the team because of that. If he clearly outplays Anderson, then the job should be his, but I hope they don't put too much emphasis on this waiver thing.

He was signed to a minor league contract. I'm pretty sure that means he doesnt have to clear waivers.

GoSox2K3

03-14-2007, 11:00 AM

They way you talk about him, he is the second coming of Joe Borchard...oh wait, you've said that before.

:rolleyes:

Yep, I added his quote about BA to my sig. a while ago. Between his completely writing off BA and "Craig Grebeck" constantly whining that the Erstad signing was the worst thing ever to happen to the White Sox, I figured these naysayers need to be put on the spot this season for their rush to judgement.

krohnjw

03-14-2007, 11:01 AM

BA has all the tools and all the talent to be a more productive hitter than BA.

Quite the challenge there!

jabrch

03-14-2007, 11:04 AM

Quite the challenge there!

Thanks...

russ99

03-14-2007, 11:10 AM

Anderson hit well in college.
Anderson hit well in Rookie ball.
Anderson hit well in A ball.
Anderson hit well in AAA ball.
Anderson hit well in July and August in the majors.
Anderson is hitting well right now in Spring Training.

Rowand hit well in 2004, in AAA and in Rookie ball.

BA has all the tools and all the talent to be a more productive hitter than Rowand.

I agree completely, but being successful at those levels and being successful in the majors is a huge leap.

Thome25

03-14-2007, 11:11 AM

Yep, I added his quote about BA to my sig. a while ago. Between his completely writing off BA and "Craig Grebeck" constantly whining that the Erstad signing was the worst thing ever to happen to the White Sox, I figured these naysayers need to be put on the spot this season for their rush to judgement.

I haven't completely written off BA. The quote you have in your sig is something I wrote because of my anger for all of the "Anderson is the next Crede bandwagoners".

If you read a couple of pages back in this very thread, you'll see my logical answer for why I made that very quote.

The BA man-love around here is just as annoying as the Rowand man-love around here.

I hope BA does well. Will it be in a Sox uni? who knows. Do I hope it's while he's wearing our uniform? yes.

Maybe I'm so synical because I've seen so many can't miss prospects come and go. And the fact that some people around here seem to have his HOF plaque already polished and ready for him.

ondafarm

03-14-2007, 11:16 AM

Honestly, I don't see the great defensive player everyone else sees in Anderson just yet. Sure he has good range, gets great jumps on the ball and has a plus arm, but he plays his position, and that's it. Don't hand him a Gold Glove just yet.

Rarely last season did I see the kind of covering for his teammates from Anderson last year that Rowand did in 2005 on a daily basis. Did he range over to left and take a play or make throws for Pods? Did he cover the alleys on every play for Dye? Did he grab one going over the fence? Hmm, I recall Mackowiak doing that, but not Anderson.

Maybe this is man-love for Rowand, but the Sox would be better served this season if they had Aaron back (or possibly Erstad if the Phils price is too high) taking it for the team in center and hitting at a major league level. Not to say either of these guys are all-stars, but they're gamers, good clubhouse guys and have tons of major league experience.

I do think the Sox have a great prospect in Anderson, but like every other Sox outfield prospect lately, MLB hitting is the issue. Maybe one day, Sweeney will break that mold. Anderson should play every day in the minors and really refine his game, be ready if needed as an injury sub and get ready to compete for (not be handed) a job in 2008.

So you readily admit to being an ESPN Web Gems fan. If you don't realize how superior Anderson's defense was to Rowand's then you must be a Web Gem devotee.

FedEx227

03-14-2007, 11:22 AM

So you readily admit to being an ESPN Web Gems fan. If you don't realize how superior Anderson's defense was to Rowand's then you must be a Web Gem devotee.

It's a shame how many people have been corrupted by Web Gems and ESPN Top 10, to believe that if you don't dive, climb a fence or make an over-the-top play you're not doing your job as a CFer.

The fact THAT Anderson didn't need to dive all over the place to catch balls should be a clear indication that he was much more comfortable and all around better than Rowand out there. It's not like teams stopped hitting gap shots when Anderson was in CF, they've always been there... and all the ones Rowand lunged for after misreading terribly, Anderson was right under.

I'm an Anderson fan-boy, and I'll admit it. For one, I think he got a raw deal last year becoming the scapegoat for what was a lazy pitching staff and an offense inept at manufacturing runs. However, I think he's got the potential to be a great CFer for years to come. While I don't think he'll ever hit above .260-.270, I'm not too worried. I'd rather have a CFer that we can rely on defensively for years to come, while building our offense around him. I expect nothing more than .260/.340-15 HRs-76 RBIs.

Don't hand him a Gold Glove just yet.

Thank god, that would make him an awful defender that relies on flash... like 80% of the gold glovers.

jabrch

03-14-2007, 11:24 AM

I agree completely, but being successful at those levels and being successful in the majors is a huge leap.

And BA was for 2 months. But now you are asking to bring back Rowand, who had 1 good season, and a bunch of mediocre ones?

itsnotrequired

03-14-2007, 11:24 AM

It's a shame how many people have been corrupted by Web Gems and ESPN Top 10, to believe that if you don't dive, climb a fence or make an over-the-top play you're not doing your job as a CFer.

That's why CFs should play as deep as possible in case they have to climb the wall and take away a home run.

Cue images of Chuckie Carr...

jabrch

03-14-2007, 11:25 AM

And the fact that some people around here seem to have his HOF plaque already polished and ready for him.

Yep, I added his quote about BA to my sig. a while ago. Between his completely writing off BA and "Craig Grebeck" constantly whining that the Erstad signing was the worst thing ever to happen to the White Sox, I figured these naysayers need to be put on the spot this season for their rush to judgement.

You could also add his quote on how Rowand is the only player in the majors that would sacrifice himself for the team.

If BA turns out to be productive, who will the Crede haters start complaining about?

Dan Mega

03-14-2007, 11:26 AM

And the fact that some people around here seem to have his HOF plaque already polished and ready for him.

Well Ozzie, it's hard to make the team when you never play him. Lately, when he has played, he's hit very well. Only to have Mackowiak out there the next day. The whole pitching and defense first thing, (that won us a championship), is out the window, IMO. Thome and Rob, the two guys that kind of brought us back to the early 2000's style.

To be fair from what I have gathered Mack was not in CF yesterday, he was in left. Gameday screwed up the lineup and didn't correct it until the later innings.

That is how I feel about spring training this year. He can't win the job sitting on the bench. He had a good game Friday going 1-3 with a homer and a walk, then doesn't play Saturday, Sunday he goes 2-2 with a walk and get's pulled in the 7th for a pinch runner and then doesn't play the next 2 days.

Anderson played Saturday in the Oakland game. He was 2-2 with an RBI.

soxfanatlanta

03-14-2007, 11:45 AM

Ondafarm:

A bit off topic, but after hearing this several times I need to ask. Walker mentioned that BA made it to the majors despite having a flaw in his swing. Why didn't any coaches in the minors try to correct it? Sure, there are players who have hitches and are still successful (Gary Sheffield, Eric Davis), but there are more who fail.

Just wondering.

Jaffar

03-14-2007, 11:46 AM

Anderson played Saturday in the Oakland game. He was 2-2 with an RBI.

Oops, my bad. I didn't see we had 2 games sat. So he had 3 days in a row of solid hitting and then 2 days off....I get it now.

CLR01

03-14-2007, 11:49 AM

I suspect that alot of Sox fans on here have BA-love because he's the "anti-Aaron Rowand." They want to be able to say they knew he was going to be good all along.

They also want to be the ones to say "See I told you we didn't need Rowand."

Figures a Rowand fan would come into a thread about Anderson and bring up Rowand. Great touch accusing the give Anderson a shot crew of having an Anderson man crush. Seriously get over it.

ondafarm

03-14-2007, 12:20 PM

Ondafarm:

A bit off topic, but after hearing this several times I need to ask. Walker mentioned that BA made it to the majors despite having a flaw in his swing. Why didn't any coaches in the minors try to correct it? Sure, there are players who have hitches and are still successful (Gary Sheffield, Eric Davis), but there are more who fail.

Just wondering.

Two factors, which are actually closely related.

BA played three years of college ball. It's not that the Pac-Ten is a bad baseball conference, quite the opposite.

First, college ball is played with aluminum bats. The difference between an aluminum bat and a wood bat is the size of the sweet spot. Metal bats allow you to get lazy and have flaws in your swing and get you through. The flaw has been there a long time.

Second, because he played college ball, he's a mature guy. Great defender, mature enough to play major league ball. But with a swing flaw, if you are more mature than your average opposition, or even a majority of your opposition, you can outthink them, out baseball sense them, you never have to drive to fix it. You get to the majors and you play against professionals who are at the top of their game. All of a sudden your past advantages are gone and you'd better fix that flaw.

Look at it with bunting. I doubt Brian has ever had to bunt for a basehit. He was always a big gun on his team and his HS coach would probably have yelled at him for trying to bunt. Now, if he could add bunting, it would add 30 points to his average and make him a solid offensive player.

KRS1

03-14-2007, 12:37 PM

Now, if he could add bunting, it would add 30 points to his average and make him a solid offensive player.

Bunting while important to being a complete player, and more of a team player, doesn't do THAT much for any players average or hitting skill. I guess it gives the D an added dimension to worry about, but to say his average is low because he can't bunt just doesnt make much sense. Now if he can learn to lay off the low breaking ball(especially the outside ones), THAT would add 30 points to his average. He just needs to keep his mechanics in check, and develop some more plate presence/patience against big league pitchers. Those things come in time with repetition, something he hasn't been given enough of consistently to build upon.

ondafarm

03-14-2007, 12:50 PM

Bunting while important to being a complete player, and more of a team player, doesn't do THAT much for any players average or hitting skill. I guess it gives the D an added dimension to worry about, but to say his average is low because he can't bunt just doesnt make much sense. Now if he can learn to lay off the low breaking ball(especially the outside ones), THAT would add 30 points to his average. He just needs to keep his mechanics in check, and develop some more plate presence/patience against big league pitchers.

I'm not meaning to imply that it would make him a better hitter as a non-bunter. As in, it would do nothing for his hitting mechanics or his pitch selection or batting eye.

Not sure if that is clear. A guy who is a .250 hitter who never bunts will still be a .250 hitter when he doesn't bunt. But adding bunting tends to raise ones average for a couple of reasons.

Second, if you can bunt anytime, anywhere, the thridbasemen must respect that. They must play in more than they would. Maybe that's just the difference between playing even with the bag and playing on the lip of the outfield, but if they choose to take your bunt away all the time, they will concede that extra now just out of reach single probably once a week.

Third, especially if you can drag bunt or push bunt to the right side, you force that second baseman to play in enough to cover it.

Adding 30 points is just a number I guessed at, but over 500 ABs (a reasonable season for a #9 hitter) 30 points is 15 extra hits or about one every fourth series. I think that number is very reasonable.

I agree about the pitch selection.

ShoelessJoeS

03-14-2007, 12:51 PM

Terrero over BA? Not likely... This is probably just more Tribune non-sense to give us at WSI more to argue about.

:smile:

russ99

03-14-2007, 01:02 PM

So you readily admit to being an ESPN Web Gems fan. If you don't realize how superior Anderson's defense was to Rowand's then you must be a Web Gem devotee.

Well, I think the only time I really noticed the CF defense was when Mackowiak was out there, so I guess that's a good thing, and says somehting about Anderson's play.

For every diamond in the rough the Sox find there's 10 players who flop. What I'm trying to say is the Joe Credes, Magglio Ordonezes and Carlos Lees are in the minority. A vast majority fail.

BA as of right now is showing that he belongs in the majority who don't succeed.

I hope he succeeds. I just can't justify putting all of my eggs in his basket right now like others have.

And for every sensible point there is a post by Thome25...

UserNameBlank

03-14-2007, 01:29 PM

Ondafarm:

A bit off topic, but after hearing this several times I need to ask. Walker mentioned that BA made it to the majors despite having a flaw in his swing. Why didn't any coaches in the minors try to correct it? Sure, there are players who have hitches and are still successful (Gary Sheffield, Eric Davis), but there are more who fail.

Just wondering.
There is an article on that somewhere on the Sox site. I think Walker said something along the lines of letting Brian make the adjustment to the major league level before making big changes. In that same article though Walker mentioned that Brian has looked better at the plate this year. Hopefully that is apparent when the season starts.

I don't think it's as ridiculous as people are making it sound. If the Sox are set on Erstad playing center everyday and not giving BA a chance (and why they would be, I haven't a clue), it'd make more sense to send BA down than have him sit on the bench everyday. He's not going to improve by getting 5 at-bats or so a week and being the occasional late-inning defensive replacement.

Jjav829

03-14-2007, 01:55 PM

Anderson is hitting well right now in Spring Training.

Well, for whatever it's worth, he hit .309 in 68 at-bats last Spring Training and we all saw how he did once the season began.

Your point is still valid, though. He should be better than a .225 hitter in time.

Hokiesox

03-14-2007, 01:55 PM

There has been talk that BA has been linked to some of McCarthy's bad behavior. Alot of the things going around have been just rumors but, if they're true I can see why he's in Ozzie's doghouse and why he is percieved this way.

Maybe I should put it in big writing so some of you understand:

BRIAN ANDERSON DOES NOT = GRADY SIZEMORE

The way some of you talk about him on here, he is the second coming of Sizemore or Joe Crede.

You say he should get a ton of playing time. Playing time on a veteran team with World Series aspirations is EARNED. That's one of the mistakes the Sox made with him last year. They handed him the job when they probably should've eased him in slowly.

Please compare BA's rookie stats to those of Robin Ventura and Joe Crede:

BA .225/.290obp/8HR

RV first full season (1990) .249/.324/5HR

JC first full season (2003) .261/.308/19HR

BA is not great, but he's not far off. Give him a chance.

Craig Grebeck

03-14-2007, 02:33 PM

One of the bigger reasons Anderson should stay in Chicago as the full time CF is because there is absolutely no viable alternative. Erstad will not outproduce Brian and would do nothing of tangible value that Anderson couldn't.

For every diamond in the rough the Sox find there's 10 players who flop. What I'm trying to say is the Joe Credes, Magglio Ordonezes and Carlos Lees are in the minority. A vast majority fail.

BA as of right now is showing that he belongs in the majority who don't succeed.

I hope he succeeds. I just can't justify putting all of my eggs in his basket right now like others have.

Well, generally, prospects either succeed or fail. The only way to find out is to have them play.

By having Anderson play regularly, the team finds out if he is the answer at CF or if they need to find a replacement. He's shown he can hit at the minor league level, so the organization needs to see if he can hit major league pitching.

ondafarm

03-14-2007, 04:09 PM

BA update.

OMG, BA is made an out in his first at bat today and he must be an abject failure as a baseball player.

AZChiSoxFan

03-14-2007, 05:32 PM

Of course Ozzie has it out for BA. Wouldn't you? He has shown so far that he can't hit, he's an underachiever, and there's been reports that he doesn't have his head on straight, and might be a little on the arrogant side as well.

Can't hit? Yes, you're totally right. BA is the first rookie in the history of the majors who struggled to hit in his first 3 months.

:rolleyes:

JB98

03-14-2007, 05:46 PM

One of the bigger reasons Anderson should stay in Chicago as the full time CF is because there is absolutely no viable alternative. Erstad will not outproduce Brian and would do nothing of tangible value that Anderson couldn't.

OK, we get it. You hate Erstad.

Hitmen77

03-14-2007, 08:34 PM

If Terrero (or Eduardo Perez) continues to make a decent showing in the spring but doesn't win a roster spot, would he be useful in a trade?

Obviously I'm not talking about a blockbuster trade here, but I'm just remembering last year at how Kenny got Thornton for Borchard and Cintron for Bajanero.

JermaineDye05

03-14-2007, 08:38 PM

Why have I seen so many people down on Erstad? He's had a darn good spring and appears to be healthy and is a great addition to this ballclub.

JB98

03-14-2007, 08:46 PM

Why have I seen so many people down on Erstad? He's had a darn good spring and appears to be healthy and is a great addition to this ballclub.

I agree, but Craig Grebeck and other statheads despise him.

The Dude

03-14-2007, 08:50 PM

They way you talk about him, he is the second coming of Joe Borchard...oh wait, you've said that before.

:rolleyes:

It's much easier not reading his posts because they are complete and utter filth!:smile:

Ozzie does have it out for BA for non-baseball related reasons and it sucks for everyone involved. One thing you do not want to do is piss off the manager especially when it's Ozzie Guillen. Hopefully he makes the team and is given every chance possible to succeed on a regular basis. Otherwise, there is no sense in having him on the club.

drewcifer

03-14-2007, 08:59 PM

Why have I seen so many people down on Erstad? He's had a darn good spring and appears to be healthy and is a great addition to this ballclub.

I agree. We just got home from Tucson, saw him 3 times in 4 games, and I'm really impressed with him. He moves well, throws well, and hits just fine. Very good plate discpline; doesn't get bullied or lose cool when behind.

He's also bigger than I realized.

I like everything I've seen.... literally SEEN (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/fugnutz/Erstad-Thome.jpg) of him.

I honestly believe he may turn out to be the best move of the off-season.

Also really really impressed with Nick Massett which almost nobody seems to be talking about around here....

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 09:06 PM

Also really really impressed with Nick Massett which almost nobody seems to be talking about around here....

Haven't you heard? His stats for spring main games are poor through March 14, therefore he has had a disappointing spring.

drewcifer

03-14-2007, 09:10 PM

Haven't you heard? His stats for spring main games are poor through March 14, therefore he has had a disappointing spring.

Yeah, I've been hearing as I flip through alot of posts.

I also SAW Buehrle look incredible last Saturday, but the numbers and game results tell a totally different tale too if you were there.

Looking at stats (especially ST) is like looking at a chick in a bikini - It can tell you alot, but nowhere near everything... If you don't see for yourself, you don't know ****.

ChiTownTrojan

03-14-2007, 09:10 PM

Why have I seen so many people down on Erstad? He's had a darn good spring and appears to be healthy and is a great addition to this ballclub.
I think most people are glad he's on the team, but they don't think it wise for him to be given the starting CF job so we can all watch his body break down halfway through the season. He could be very valuable as a reserve OF/1B.

ilsox7

03-14-2007, 09:11 PM

Yeah, I've been hearing as I flip through alot of posts.

I also SAW Buehrle look incredible last Saturday, but the numbers and game results tell a totally different tale too if you were there.

Looking at stats are like looking at a chick in a bikini - It can tell you alot, but nowhere near everything... If you don't see for yourself, you don't know ****.

Yep. Especially at this stage of the game. Wish I could have gone out to AZ to see me some spring games.

jabrch

03-14-2007, 10:38 PM

Why have I seen so many people down on Erstad? He's had a darn good spring and appears to be healthy and is a great addition to this ballclub.

Cuz the stathead bible tells them so.b

Craig Grebeck

03-14-2007, 10:45 PM

I agree, but Craig Grebeck and other statheads despise him.
I do not despise Darin Erstad. I am sure he is a very nice man who loves the game of baseball. Unfortunately, I do think he is not very good at baseball. Now, if you would like to point out that Erstad is a grinder and a clubhouse guy, that's great. And every time you point out an intangible in his favor, I will point out a tangible to counter it (i.e. the fact he hasn't produced offensively in a very long time).

I'm sure he'd be a useful backup due to his versatility. Unfortunately, he does not have the tools to play everyday. But try to tell Dusty, I mean Ozzie, that a veteran with little to no upside has no business playing over a rookie that has proven himself in the minors and has a great deal of upside.

Now, why was I so angry when he signed with the White Sox? Because it gave reason for this discussion. Ozzie loves his grinders/hustlers/veterans, so it was fairly obvious at the time that no matter what Brian does (which by the way, he's played better than Erstad, and even drew two walks today)I am perfectly alright with signing a backup CF, but it has to be clear that he is the BACKUP, and not the starter.

Also, I always hear about how Anderson needs to prove his worth before he is "handed" the starting CF job. Why doesn't Erstad have to earn anything? He hasn't been setting the world on fire and it's fairly clear that his better days are behind him. Anderson was not even handed the job last year after a torrent spring and probably never got comfortable in CF.

Again, I do not despise Darin Erstad. I despise the fact that the presence of a bench player whose best days are certainly long gone, can stunt the growth of a CF that the manager (for some odd reason) will not give a chance to.

California Sox

03-14-2007, 10:48 PM

I'm not a huge BA booster. Hope for the best, expect the .240 10 45. But anybody who thinks Terrero should be counted on needs to remember this is spring training in Tucson. Breaking balls don't break, the ball carries incredibly well, and by and large pitchers are not focused on hitters' weaknesses off scouting reports. From what I've seen of him from when he was in AZ, the guy's a good athlete but if the ball is round, he's swinging. Tons of strikeouts, almost no walks, a skinny Uribe if we're lucky. He reminds me of that kid, I think his name was Ramirez, who had been a big prospect in Florida. Sox signed him as a minor league FA and he tore up AZ. Then, the team came North and he couldn't hit a lick.

Terrero's no sure thing.

drewcifer

03-14-2007, 10:52 PM

I do not despise Darin Erstad. I am sure he is a very nice man who loves the game of baseball. Unfortunately, I do think he is not very good at baseball. Now, if you would like to point out that Erstad is a grinder and a clubhouse guy, that's great. And every time you point out an intangible in his favor, I will point out a tangible to counter it (i.e. the fact he hasn't produced offensively in a very long time).

I'm sure he'd be a useful backup due to his versatility. Unfortunately, he does not have the tools to play everyday. But try to tell Dusty, I mean Ozzie, that a veteran with little to no upside has no business playing over a rookie that has proven himself in the minors and has a great deal of upside.

Now, why was I so angry when he signed with the White Sox? Because it gave reason for this discussion. Ozzie loves his grinders/hustlers/veterans, so it was fairly obvious at the time that no matter what Brian does (which by the way, he's played better than Erstad, and even drew two walks today)I am perfectly alright with signing a backup CF, but it has to be clear that he is the BACKUP, and not the starter.

Also, I always hear about how Anderson needs to prove his worth before he is "handed" the starting CF job. Why doesn't Erstad have to earn anything? He hasn't been setting the world on fire and it's fairly clear that his better days are behind him. Anderson was not even handed the job last year after a torrent spring and probably never got comfortable in CF.

Again, I do not despise Darin Erstad. I despise the fact that the presence of a bench player whose best days are certainly long gone, can stunt the growth of a CF that the manager (for some odd reason) will not give a chance to.

I'm so saving this post. The "Ozzie, I mean Dusty" part got my attention, I must admit - Then it got better.

You are ****ing clueless.

ondafarm

03-14-2007, 11:18 PM

I'm a BA booster. I think he deserves to be the starting CF and will hit respectably this year and only continue to improve. I wish he'd learn to bunt but you can't have everything.

I'm also a big fan of Erstad. Anyone who says he's not very good at baseball just doesn't know what they are talking about. The man has gold gloves from outfield and infield positions. That is not an accident. Is he possibly past his prime? Maybe. But he brings something the Sox desperately need, a second adequate lead-off hitter. He gives the Sox four good outfielders and that can keep everybody fresh for throughout the season. It also means the Sox have no need to rush Pods back.

Madscout

03-14-2007, 11:51 PM

It is always interesting to me that everyone rips on a rookie's hitting when we have a SS that hits like **** as well. Sure, he hits for some power, but we are still screwed if we have to put our hope on his bat. Let the Cintron/Uribe contraversy begin.

Give the kid a shot. If he works out, we have a starting CF for 400K. Then we can ship him off if that's what Ozzie wants.

QCIASOXFAN

03-15-2007, 12:02 AM

This is great news.:cool:

CLR01

03-15-2007, 01:28 AM

It is always interesting to me that everyone rips on a rookie's hitting when we have a SS that hits like **** as well.

Well yeah, if that rookie could hit we wouldn't have to worry about the no hit 6 year veteran SS. It's all Anderson's fault.

WhiteSox5187

03-15-2007, 01:56 AM

I think I understand why Ozzie doesn't like BA very much and that's because BA is a cocky bastard. I remember reading in the Sun Times how after Ozzie and Kenny had a discussion with him how they decided to keep him in the majors, after BA left Kenny told Ozzie "If this kid ever hits .250 we're going to be in trouble." It sounds like the kid has an ego and the fact that he wasn't listening to Greg Walker or seeking out advice from any coach last year kind got under Ozzie's skin. I mean, Kenny traded a fan (and Ozzie) favorite last year so BA could take over (that wasn't the WHOLE reason, obviously) and it seemed like that BA didn't really take that for granted. Now, obviously I'm just speculating here, but from what I've read and what I've heard, it didn't sound like BA was exactly working his ass off last year (not to say that he wasn't working) and I imagine that would drive Ozzie nuts. That drives a lot of Sox fans nuts. The one thing we Sox fans appreciate is a guy who works hard. I think that BA's lax attitude has really hurt his standing with Ozzie and I think a good kick in the ass might straighten BA out and he'll do fine and all will be forgiven. But he HAS to work his ass off to get to that point, and hopefully he's doing just that. But if he isn't, he's going to be in Ozzie's doghouse for a long time.

Nellie_Fox

03-15-2007, 02:50 AM

Let the Cintron/Uribe contraversy begin.:tealpolice:
Teal. Not teal.

I won't even address the spelling.

oeo

03-15-2007, 03:01 AM

I think I understand why Ozzie doesn't like BA very much and that's because BA is a cocky bastard. I remember reading in the Sun Times how after Ozzie and Kenny had a discussion with him how they decided to keep him in the majors, after BA left Kenny told Ozzie "If this kid ever hits .250 we're going to be in trouble." It sounds like the kid has an ego and the fact that he wasn't listening to Greg Walker or seeking out advice from any coach last year kind got under Ozzie's skin. I mean, Kenny traded a fan (and Ozzie) favorite last year so BA could take over (that wasn't the WHOLE reason, obviously) and it seemed like that BA didn't really take that for granted. Now, obviously I'm just speculating here, but from what I've read and what I've heard, it didn't sound like BA was exactly working his ass off last year (not to say that he wasn't working) and I imagine that would drive Ozzie nuts. That drives a lot of Sox fans nuts. The one thing we Sox fans appreciate is a guy who works hard. I think that BA's lax attitude has really hurt his standing with Ozzie and I think a good kick in the ass might straighten BA out and he'll do fine and all will be forgiven. But he HAS to work his ass off to get to that point, and hopefully he's doing just that. But if he isn't, he's going to be in Ozzie's doghouse for a long time.

Uh...was it not Walker that said he saw flaws but hoped they would work themselves out? Listening to Walker? Walker apparently didn't give him anything to listen to.

And where have you read this stuff that he's a slacker? I don't think Ozzie has a problem with Brian, it's just that Brian was total garbage at the plate last year. It was either bring in another bat, when we had our SS batting on the wrong side of .250, while sacrificing defense...or defense and sacrifice the extra bat.

I think this Ozzie hates BA crap is media bull****, I don't buy it for a second. If Ozzie didn't like him, or they thought he was a slacker, he wouldn't be in a Sox uniform this year. The Sox do not keep around the bad apples; they're thrown out.

ondafarm

03-15-2007, 08:52 AM

I think I understand why Ozzie doesn't like BA very much and that's because BA is a cocky bastard. I remember reading in the Sun Times how after Ozzie and Kenny had a discussion with him how they decided to keep him in the majors, after BA left Kenny told Ozzie "If this kid ever hits .250 we're going to be in trouble." It sounds like the kid has an ego and the fact that he wasn't listening to Greg Walker or seeking out advice from any coach last year kind got under Ozzie's skin. I mean, Kenny traded a fan (and Ozzie) favorite last year so BA could take over (that wasn't the WHOLE reason, obviously) and it seemed like that BA didn't really take that for granted. Now, obviously I'm just speculating here, but from what I've read and what I've heard, it didn't sound like BA was exactly working his ass off last year (not to say that he wasn't working) and I imagine that would drive Ozzie nuts. That drives a lot of Sox fans nuts. The one thing we Sox fans appreciate is a guy who works hard. I think that BA's lax attitude has really hurt his standing with Ozzie and I think a good kick in the ass might straighten BA out and he'll do fine and all will be forgiven. But he HAS to work his ass off to get to that point, and hopefully he's doing just that. But if he isn't, he's going to be in Ozzie's doghouse for a long time.

If this happened for a second, he'd be in the minors. That's true of every manager I have ever known, not just Ozzie. Even a guy as talented as Chili Davis, who should have 500+ HR career if he'd had a decent attitude, got sent down for this garbage.

If this is the impression you get from the Chicago media especially the Sun-Times, then you should go elsewhere for your news.

...One reason working against Anderson is manager Ozzie Guillen's desire to have his young center fielder start every day for Triple-A Charlotte, as opposed to coming off the bench two or three times per week. Darin Erstad appears to be entrenched as the second starting outfielder alongside Jermaine Dye, and if Podsednik finds himself ready for Opening Day, Anderson would be competing with Luis Terrero and Eduardo Perez to serve as one of the right-handed hitters off the bench.

We need Erstad in the line up against righties until Anderson develops more.

SoxfaninLA

03-15-2007, 09:41 AM

He reminds me of that kid, I think his name was Ramirez, who had been a big prospect in Florida. Sox signed him as a minor league FA and he tore up AZ. Then, the team came North and he couldn't hit a lick.

Terrero's no sure thing.

Julio Ramirez was the guy's name, the Sox had traded Jeff Abbott for him after the 2000 season. He had a great spring and the king of tinker decided he should be the starting centerfielder. He proceeded to hit .081 in 22 games with NO extra base hits. He was beyond awful, he made Anderson look like Ken Griffey Jr. at the plate.

We need Erstad in the line up against righties until Anderson develops more.
Not necessarily. His OPS still wasn't mind-blowing, and BA has already torn up AAA. There's no reason to send him down at this point when there is no one better than him on the roster.

Ondafarm: yes, Erstad isn't good at baseball. In fact, he's quite bad. He's subpar offensively and probably doesn't have the legs anymore to be the great fielder he was.

Even if he does, I would hope that people have the intuition to actually check his batting statistics and not go off of a reputation from five years ago. He can't hit a lick and he hasn't done it in six years.

BA has far and away had the better spring and no amount of hyperbole and garbage speculation will change my mind that BA belongs in CF.

jabrch

03-15-2007, 02:28 PM

He can't hit a lick and he hasn't done it in six years.

Every now and then I take you off my ignore list to remind me exactly why you are on my ignore list.

In 2004 he hit .295/.346/.400 and played excellent defense at 1B.

When healthy, Darin has had ZERO bad offensive seasons in his career. ZERO.

He's a career .286/.341 hitter. If he's healthy, there's no reason to not expect decent numbers from him, unless your spreadsheet, where you are straightlining injuried seasons and discounting healthy ones, tells you so.

Craig Grebeck

03-15-2007, 02:41 PM

Every now and then I take you off my ignore list to remind me exactly why you are on my ignore list.

In 2004 he hit .295/.346/.400 and played excellent defense at 1B.

When healthy, Darin has had ZERO bad offensive seasons in his career. ZERO.

He's a career .286/.341 hitter. If he's healthy, there's no reason to not expect decent numbers from him, unless your spreadsheet, where you are straightlining injuried seasons and discounting healthy ones, tells you so.
Three years ago he did OPS .746. That's fairly middle of the road. When you consider that he played first base (which is a hell of a lot less strenuous on the lower body than CF), and the fact that it was THREE YEARS AGO, you realize that it's not very relevant to what Erstad will do (relative to Anderson) in 2007. If you think that's good, fine. Keep in mind that was three years and a few injuries ago. But Anderson has the ability to do that and more. The fact that you believe a 32 year old player (who has been through A TON of injuries in his career) can hit like he did three years ago and even before that, is ridiculous.

What has Erstad done to warrant the starting CF position? Please answer me. If you want to be a condescending prick, fine, but please provide some relevant evidence for why Erstad is a better option than BA.

CLR01

03-15-2007, 02:51 PM

Focus on the topic not each other. If you can't do that just stay out of the thread. This will be the only warning.

nodiggity59

03-15-2007, 02:52 PM

Three years ago he did OPS .746. That's fairly middle of the road. When you consider that he played first base (which is a hell of a lot less strenuous on the lower body than CF), and the fact that it was THREE YEARS AGO, you realize that it's not very relevant to what Erstad will do (relative to Anderson) in 2007. If you think that's good, fine. Keep in mind that was three years and a few injuries ago. But Anderson has the ability to do that and more. The fact that you believe a 32 year old player (who has been through A TON of injuries in his career) can hit like he did three years ago and even before that, is ridiculous.

What has Erstad done to warrant the starting CF position? Please answer me. If you want to be a condescending prick, fine, but please provide some relevant evidence for why Erstad is a better option than BA.

What you don't understand is that even though BA has a greater upside doesn't mean that he'll be better than Erstad this year. I think BA will settle into a .275/20/85 w/ about 15 steals at his peak for about 3 or 4 years.

However, 2007 will NOT be one of those seasons. Since we are in it to win it, Erstad should start over BA. Why are you sweating so much when BA probably not do muhc anyway?

SoxfaninLA

03-15-2007, 02:53 PM

Not necessarily. His OPS still wasn't mind-blowing, and BA has already torn up AAA. There's no reason to send him down at this point when there is no one better than him on the roster.

Ondafarm: yes, Erstad isn't good at baseball. In fact, he's quite bad. He's subpar offensively and probably doesn't have the legs anymore to be the great fielder he was.

Even if he does, I would hope that people have the intuition to actually check his batting statistics and not go off of a reputation from five years ago. He can't hit a lick and he hasn't done it in six years.

BA has far and away had the better spring and no amount of hyperbole and garbage speculation will change my mind that BA belongs in CF.

Erstad isn't what I would call a great offensive player, but to automatically assume that Anderson is a far better offensive player is hyperbole on your part, considering even in his "breakout" second half last season his OPS was only 694. I realize he is a young player and is likely to improve this season, but don't just assume he is going to have a good season because he is having a nice spring training. He had a nice spring training last year and proceeded to crap the bed in the first half and hit a smoking 192.

Erstad can be an asset to this team if he stays healthy. Considering the Sox have the best in the business taking care of him (Herm), I would bet on Erstad playing well over 100 games if he can contribute like he has in the past.

jabrch

03-15-2007, 03:05 PM

What you don't understand is that even though BA has a greater upside doesn't mean that he'll be better than Erstad this year. I think BA will settle into a .275/20/85 w/ about 15 steals at his peak for about 3 or 4 years.

However, 2007 will NOT be one of those seasons. Since we are in it to win it, Erstad should start over BA. Why are you sweating so much when BA probably not do muhc anyway?

I like having both of them. I'm good starting either of them. I just enjoy listenting to people who are so 100% convinced that they are right, either way, that BA or Erstad will not be productive when there is absolutely no reason to conclude that. The people arguing against BA are conveniently leaving out the fact that Brian has hit at every level, including 2 good months at the ML level. The people arguing against Erstad are trying to measure him with OPS (which is quite foolish since he's not asked to be a slugger), forgetting that he has not been healthy in 2 of the past 3 years, but he is now. They are forgetting that he is still a very good hitter if you measure a hitter by things like hits.

I'm a fan of both BA and Erstad. I like having both options and being able to switch them in different situations. Both are good defensive CFs and have the potential to be very solid hitters in the back or very functional (they hit, they run, they handle the bat) if they are hitting in the #2 hole. The statement that either of them "can't hit a lick" is ridiculous, and it ignores two careers worth of data that proves otherwise.

Britt Burns

03-15-2007, 04:24 PM

Total crap. If Pods is healthy BA is competing against Erstad for a spot, not Terrero. What terrible reporting.

maurice

03-15-2007, 04:32 PM

I like having both of them. I'm good starting either of them. I just enjoy listenting to people who are so 100% convinced that they are right, either way, that BA or Erstad will not be productive when there is absolutely no reason to conclude that.

QFT. Either player is capable of hitting reasonably well in 2007, and either player is capable of hitting .220 in 2007. Nobody knows who will do what. That's why they play the games.

I just hope that Ozzie doesn't stack the deck against the Sox by overplaying Erstad (increasing the risk of injury and of sucking against LHP) or by benching an effective Anderson against shlub pitchers so that an ineffective veteran can get unwarranted ABs.

DickAllen72

03-15-2007, 04:35 PM

If Pods is healthy BA is competing against Erstad for a spot, not Terrero.
True--for the starting CF job. But if Anderson loses the starting job, he is competing against Terrero for the bench job, and Ozzie said he doesn't want Anderson sitting on the bench.

A. Cavatica

03-15-2007, 08:35 PM

I agree, but Craig Grebeck and other statheads despise him.

I just think he's living off his 2000 season. He was a great signing as a backup outfielder, for the money. If he was signed to be a starter, we're in trouble.

California Sox

03-15-2007, 09:50 PM

BA has far and away had the better spring and no amount of hyperbole and garbage speculation will change my mind that BA belongs in CF.

I don't disagree that Erstad has not been good since his breakout 2000 season, but here are the stats so far:

Anderson has been slightly better than Erstad in fewer at bats, but Terrero has been slightly better than Anderson in fewer at bats. But all of them have been doing fine and no one is "far and away" having the best spring. The one encouraging thing from the stats for Anderson is his paltry strikeout total. He has struck out 3 times all spring. Remember what cutting down on his Ks did for Crede last year. My one caveat is "this is Tucson." If your weakness is breaking balls, what a great place to hit.

santo=dorf

03-15-2007, 10:16 PM

When healthy, Darin has had ZERO bad offensive seasons in his career. ZERO.

He's a career .286/.341 hitter. If he's healthy, there's no reason to not expect decent numbers from him, unless your spreadsheet, where you are straightlining injuried seasons and discounting healthy ones, tells you so.
Sounds like the excuses flub fans having been using for Kerry Wood all these years.

In 2005 Erstad playing in a 153 games posting a crappy .325 OBP. That's a bad offensive season without mentioning the .371 SLG%.
In 2002 he played in 150 games and had a .313 OBP.
In 2001 he played in 157 games and had a .331 OBP
In 1999 he played in 142 games with 585 at bats and had a .308 OBP.

How exactly weren't those "bad" offensive seasons.:?:

jabrch

03-15-2007, 10:34 PM

Sounds like the excuses flub fans having been using for Kerry Wood all these years.

In 2005 Erstad playing in a 153 games posting a crappy .325 OBP. That's a bad offensive season without mentioning the .371 SLG%.
In 2002 he played in 150 games and had a .313 OBP.
In 2001 he played in 157 games and had a .331 OBP
In 1999 he played in 142 games with 585 at bats and had a .308 OBP.

How exactly weren't those "bad" offensive seasons.:?:

If you keep giving just one statistic, you will get a one sided view. OBP alone doesn't measure a player. Before last year his avg was never below .250. It was usually about .280. In 04 it was .295.

Maybe some of them weren't great seasons, but they weren't bad. (assuming the options are Bad, OK or Great)

And by the way, you are ignoring a lot of other things he does fairly well.

santo=dorf

03-15-2007, 10:41 PM

His offensive numbers suck, period. I looked at his SLG% when he was healthy, and it sucked.

You tell me how he wasn't a bad offensive players during those years. So far you rattled off a misleading statistic in batting average. (so much for not using only one stat.)

What good is a ball player if the guy doesn't walk, and doesn't hit for power regardless of what his actual batting average is? Alex Sanchez batted over .300 one season but he was horrible.

Neifi Perez batted .274 for the Cubs in 2005 but like Erstad he didn't walk or hit for power, so he was a bad offensive player (.290 OBP, .681 OPS.) Oh, and just like Erstad, he won a gold glove and his bosses talked about how much they love "the other things he brings to the table."

Craig Grebeck

03-15-2007, 10:45 PM

If you keep giving just one statistic, you will get a one sided view. OBP alone doesn't measure a player. Before last year his avg was never below .250. It was usually about .280. In 04 it was .295.

Maybe some of them weren't great seasons, but they weren't bad. (assuming the options are Bad, OK or Great)

And by the way, you are ignoring a lot of other things he does fairly well.

what does he do fairly well?

santo=dorf

03-15-2007, 10:50 PM

what does he do fairly well?
He plays hard, gets dirty, and he has won a gold glove. He also doesn't walk or hit for power, and our manager is going to overuse him and block the development of one of our young players. I guess he's our version of NE!F!
:anon:

jabrch

03-15-2007, 11:22 PM

His offensive numbers suck, period. I looked at his SLG% when he was healthy, and it sucked.

I don't care what my 8th hitter or my 2nd hitter slug.

You tell me how he wasn't a bad offensive players during those years. So far you rattled off a misleading statistic in batting average. (so much for not using only one stat.)

That's why I'm saying you can't draw one conclusion or the other. He's not "bad"; he's not good. He's somewhere in the middle, but he does some things very well - like HIT. Using one statistic will mislead you one way or the other.

What good is a ball player if the guy doesn't walk, and doesn't hit for power regardless of what his actual batting average is? Alex Sanchez batted over .300 one season but he was horrible.

I'll take as many .300 hitters as I can get. Hitting is effective regardless of if a pitcher throws strikes or not. Tell me how many walks a good walker will get off of Johan Santana?

Neifi Perez batted .274 for the Cubs in 2005 but like Erstad he didn't walk or hit for power, so he was a bad offensive player (.290 OBP, .681 OPS.) Oh, and just like Erstad, he won a gold glove and his bosses talked about how much they love "the other things he brings to the table."

.290 vs .325 is quite a difference. You think? And if his bosses loved the other things he brings to the table, that's fine. Except that Neifi has no speed, walks less than Erstad, has less power than Erstad, and isn't as good a baserunner. Other than that - nice comparison.

santo=dorf

03-16-2007, 06:13 AM

I don't care what my 8th hitter or my 2nd hitter slug.

Fine, but don't expect that runner on base to ever get home

That's why I'm saying you can't draw one conclusion or the other. He's not "bad"; he's not good. He's somewhere in the middle, but he does some things very well - like HIT. Using one statistic will mislead you one way or the other.
With the exception of 2000, 1998, and 1997, Darin Erstad's stats were below the league average. By definition he isn't in the middle.

I'll take as many .300 hitters as I can get. Hitting is effective regardless of if a pitcher throws strikes or not. Tell me how many walks a good walker will get off of Johan Santana?
LOL.

Too bad Erstad isn't a .300 hitter, and your approach would obviously flop because your weak slap hitters won't be able to drive anyone in if someone they actually do get on base. The Sox are only facing Johan Santana 4 or 5 times a season. Shawon Dunston was a .300 hitter too and he sucked In 1997 he batted .300, but had an OBP of .312. That's not good

.290 vs .325 is quite a difference. You think? And if his bosses loved the other things he brings to the table, that's fine. Except that Neifi has no speed, walks less than Erstad, has less power than Erstad, and isn't as good a baserunner. Other than that - nice comparison.
I thought it went through in the edit, but his OBP was .298, and no, I don't think there's much difference between .298 and .308 or .313. There is a difference in .298 and .325, but it's still bad. Just like Perez, Erstad doesn't walk much, hit for power, or steal a lot of bases. I don't care if his numbers are marginally better in those categories because they still suck. It's like saying Felix Diaz isn't like Arnie Munoz because his ERA wasn't a high as Munoz's. Darin Erstad isn't a speedster, and even if he was, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because HE DOESN'T GET ON BASE ENOUGH.

Craig Grebeck

03-16-2007, 08:09 AM

So now that you've admitted he's not good, will you please admit that it's not worth yanking BA around and screwing him out of a job for a guy that most people (who believe that hitting is more than slapping singles around and looking tough) know can't possibly be productive after his massive decline.

jabrch

03-16-2007, 08:32 AM

I thought it went through in the edit, but his OBP was .298, and no, I don't think there's much difference between .298 and .308 or .313. There is a difference in .298 and .325, but it's still bad. Just like Perez, Erstad doesn't walk much, hit for power, or steal a lot of bases. I don't care if his numbers are marginally better in those categories because they still suck. It's like saying Felix Diaz isn't like Arnie Munoz because his ERA wasn't a high as Munoz's. Darin Erstad isn't a speedster, and even if he was, it wouldn't make a lick of difference because HE DOESN'T GET ON BASE ENOUGH.

You really don't see room for a LH hitter who hits .286/.341, plays decent D in CF or LF, and runs very well on this team? You really think he "can't hit a lick"? That's crazy.

I don't really care who starts between BA, Pods and Erstad. There's absolutely no way you can look into your crystal ball and tell me which one will have the best/worst season. All of them have the potential to be impactful in the role they will be asked to play, and none of them consume a large amount of payroll.

I'm by no means saying Erstad is a great hitter. I am saying he's as good as any option we have, and that we can make a reasonable case for him getting ABs.

I still don't think you answered my question - how many walks is a great walker going to draw from Johan Santana? How about Roy Halliday? Verlander? Schilling? etc. etc. The answer is very few. You want a guy who will step into the box and get a hit. Walks are very nice against pitchers who don't throw strikes. But there are about 10 SPs in our division who don't walk many guys. That's why I like hitters over walkers. Erstad is a hitter.

Craig Grebeck

03-16-2007, 09:02 AM

Stop mentioning his career statistics, it's completely irrelevant. They are crazy inflated by his FLUKE 2000 season.

GoSox2K3

03-16-2007, 11:04 AM

Stop mentioning his career statistics, it's completely irrelevant. They are crazy inflated by his FLUKE 2000 season.

Just like how your post count has been crazy inflated by your obsessive bashing of Erstad even before he's played one game for us.

SABRSox

03-16-2007, 11:35 AM

Living in Los Angeles, I've had a chance to see Erstad play recently, and well, I'll just put it this way, he's not a player you get too excited about. He's probably a great guy, but he's not a very good ballplayer anymore. I haven't seen him play in the OF in a long time either, so I really don't know how well he can handle that. He's a nice 4th OF, but he probably shouldn't be starting there over BA.

White Sox Randy

03-16-2007, 11:44 AM

Living in Los Angeles, I've had a chance to see Erstad play recently, and well, I'll just put it this way, he's not a player you get too excited about. He's probably a great guy, but he's not a very good ballplayer anymore. I haven't seen him play in the OF in a long time either, so I really don't know how well he can handle that. He's a nice 4th OF, but he probably shouldn't be starting there over BA.

AGREED ! He's probably been added to help BA and light a fire under Anderson as much as 4th outfield reasons.

Bottome line: The Sox NEED Anderson to step up and improve significantly on offense this year if they want to win the division because Erstad is not going to be a difference maker with whatever he has left.

CLR01

03-16-2007, 11:50 AM

AGREED ! He's probably been added to help BA and light a fire under Anderson as much as 4th outfield reasons.

Bottome line: The Sox NEED Anderson to step up and improve significantly on offense this year if they want to win the division because Erstad is not going to be a difference maker with whatever he has left.

NO they don't. While it would certainly be nice for the Sox and Anderson's career if if he did the no. 9 hitter will NOT be the difference between the Sox winning the division and sitting home in October. It wasn't in 2005, it wasn't last year, it won't be this year or next year either.

maurice

03-16-2007, 12:08 PM

He's a nice 4th OF, but he probably shouldn't be starting there over BA.

QFT. He should be backing up Anderson, Dye, and Konerko, and competing for playing time with Podsednik in LF. That's plenty of ABs. Any more than that, and you risk exposing his weaknesses or increasing his chance of injury.

If Podsednik starts the season on the DL, Erstad probably will platoon with Ozuna in LF. If he's not on the DL, we're at the mercy of Ozzie's strategery again.
:(:

KenBerryGrab

03-16-2007, 12:42 PM

Living in Los Angeles, I've had a chance to see Erstad play recently, and well, I'll just put it this way, he's not a player you get too excited about. He's probably a great guy, but he's not a very good ballplayer anymore. I haven't seen him play in the OF in a long time either, so I really don't know how well he can handle that. He's a nice 4th OF, but he probably shouldn't be starting there over BA.

He couldn't move the last two years, though. But I see your point.

White Sox Randy

03-16-2007, 12:48 PM

NO they don't. While it would certainly be nice for the Sox and Anderson's career if if he did the no. 9 hitter will NOT be the difference between the Sox winning the division and sitting home in October. It wasn't in 2005, it wasn't last year, it won't be this year or next year either.

I disagree. Given the rest of the team, Anderson's improvement could make the difference. If he sucks again i.e. the same as Erstad, then the offense won't be good enough to make up for this pitching staff.

If Uribe is the same as last year (likely )and CF production is the same as last year then this offense (like last year ) won't be enough.

INSox56

03-16-2007, 01:10 PM

I disagree. Given the rest of the team, Anderson's improvement could make the difference. If he sucks again i.e. the same as Erstad, then the offense won't be good enough to make up for this pitching staff.

If Uribe is the same as last year (likely )and CF production is the same as last year then this offense (like last year ) won't be enough.

Did you pay attention at all last year? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=7&seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=runs&split=0&season=2006

CLR01

03-16-2007, 01:10 PM

I disagree. Given the rest of the team, Anderson's improvement could make the difference. If he sucks again i.e. the same as Erstad, then the offense won't be good enough to make up for this pitching staff.

If Uribe is the same as last year (likely )and CF production is the same as last year then this offense (like last year ) won't be enough.

If the pitching is anywhere near as bad this year as it was last year then the Sox are pretty much screwed. I don't care if Anderson hits .200 or .280.

soxfanatlanta

03-16-2007, 01:18 PM

If the pitching is anywhere near as bad this year as it was last year then the Sox are pretty much screwed. I don't care if Anderson hits .200 or .280.

Thank you for that perspective.
:thumbsup:

White Sox Randy

03-16-2007, 01:35 PM

Did you pay attention at all last year? http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=7&seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=runs&split=0&season=2006

I don't think you were watching Anderson make all those outs. What if he had hit .260 / .340 with 15-20 dingers ? You think the Sox could have made up 5 games ?

The pitching is likely to be comparable to last year - maybe slightly better. This is definitely going to be a dogfight for the Sox to make the playoffs. The only offensive position that the Sox can realistically hope for significant improvement is CF.

And, if it didn't matter what Anderson hits then why was Mackowiak out there mucking up CF last year and why is Erstad here now ?

Rowandws33

03-16-2007, 03:57 PM

iam sick of Anderson not being in the lineup. He is young and needs time to develop. He should be getting as many at bats as he can. Anderson hit well in the second half he hit around .280. I want anderson in the starting lineup opening day...

jabrch

03-16-2007, 04:50 PM

iam sick of Anderson not being in the lineup. He is young and needs time to develop. He should be getting as many at bats as he can. Anderson hit well in the second half he hit around .280. I want anderson in the starting lineup opening day...

I can go either way on this - I'll trust Ozzie and Kenny - they've won more World Serieses than you or me.

santo=dorf

03-16-2007, 05:52 PM

You really don't see room for a LH hitter who hits .286/.341, plays decent D in CF or LF, and runs very well on this team? You really think he "can't hit a lick"? That's crazy.

I don't really care who starts between BA, Pods and Erstad. There's absolutely no way you can look into your crystal ball and tell me which one will have the best/worst season. All of them have the potential to be impactful in the role they will be asked to play, and none of them consume a large amount of payroll.

I'm by no means saying Erstad is a great hitter. I am saying he's as good as any option we have, and that we can make a reasonable case for him getting ABs.

I still don't think you answered my question - how many walks is a great walker going to draw from Johan Santana? How about Roy Halliday? Verlander? Schilling? etc. etc. The answer is very few. You want a guy who will step into the box and get a hit. Walks are very nice against pitchers who don't throw strikes. But there are about 10 SPs in our division who don't walk many guys. That's why I like hitters over walkers. Erstad is a hitter.
Unlike Craig Grebeck, I think Erstad can be a postive contributor to this team if he is used properly. That being a 1B defensive replacement and back up CF. As I feared when he was signed, he looks like he is going to block Anderson.

I don't care who the pitcher is, I want the guy with the highest OBP to face any pitcher (unless the other guy has a proven track record of owning a guy.) OBP is not entirely dependent on walking and is DIRECTLY reletated to batting average. You stick with your Alex Sanchez's, Juan Pierre's, Darin Erstad's, Neifi Perez's and Shawon Dunston's.

Juan Pierre is declining and his OBP last year was .330. He has the distinction of having the worst batting average for 200 hits. Is it really impressive of a player to have 200 hits in 700+ at bats? I rather have JD Drew get 150+ hits and have 110+ BB's in 630 PA's than have Juan Pierre have 200 hits and 30 BB's in 730 PA's. If you wouldn't either, you're clueless.

I mentioned those other guys because they are your types of players. They can hit for a high average, but don't walk much. You made a comment in another thread talking about how these guys are underrated and you incorrectly labeled Podsednik as one of those guys. Pods bats .260 and has an OBP of .330. Erstad bats .289 and has a .313 OBP.

They are not similar.

jabrch

03-16-2007, 06:46 PM

Juan Pierre is declining and his OBP last year was .330. He has the distinction of having the worst batting average for 200 hits. Is it really impressive of a player to have 200 hits in 700+ at bats? I rather have JD Drew get 150+ hits and have 110+ BB's in 630 PA's than have Juan Pierre have 200 hits and 30 BB's in 730 PA's. If you wouldn't either, you're clueless.

You can't compare JD Drew to Juan Pierre because they do different things. You don't sign JD to lead off and you don't sign Juan Pierre to get injured.

JD Drew is going to get 30 PAs? HA HA HA... He's done that ZERO times in his career Santo - ZERO.

I mentioned those other guys because they are your types of players. They can hit for a high average, but don't walk much.

That's a nice way mis-portay my opinions, but that is not what I like. I'm realistic that our team won't have all $15mm players so you have to construct your roster to maximize your payroll that you have. Having a guy who makes 2mm who's a career .285 hitter with a good glove and good speed won't hurt your club - EVER. If BA wins the job - great - I'm a fan of BA. If he doesn't, great - I'm a fan of Erstad. Either way, I think we have a guy who will contribute in a defined role. I just don't see any way to conclude that either of them, BA or Erstad, won't be a productive player based on what we know. You seem to be 100% convinced that Erstad won't be a productive #2 hitter. I'll stand by my position that I trust Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen much more than Santo=Dorf.

santo=dorf

03-16-2007, 06:56 PM

You can't compare JD Drew to Juan Pierre because they do different things. You don't sign JD to lead off and you don't sign Juan Pierre to get injured.

JD Drew is going to get 30 PAs? HA HA HA... He's done that ZERO times in his career Santo - ZERO.

That's a nice way mis-portay my opinions, but that is not what I like. I'm realistic that our team won't have all $15mm players so you have to construct your roster to maximize your payroll that you have. Having a guy who makes 2mm who's a career .285 hitter with a good glove and good speed won't hurt your club - EVER. If BA wins the job - great - I'm a fan of BA. If he doesn't, great - I'm a fan of Erstad. Either way, I think we have a guy who will contribute in a defined role. I just don't see any way to conclude that either of them, BA or Erstad, won't be a productive player based on what we know. You seem to be 100% convinced that Erstad won't be a productive #2 hitter. I'll stand by my position that I trust Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen much more than Santo=Dorf.

Go ahead and stand by your weak position, because you are doubting the facts. You've been baiting people all offseason and play the same old song "I'm glad KW and Ozzie don't think like you" once people have explicitly made their points. You've done it with Craig Grebeck, and you did it SouthSide_Hitmen (huge Pods debate.)

ondafarm

03-16-2007, 07:01 PM

Whether anybody likes Erstad or not, he is on the team, Ozzie is getting him plenty of onfield time and ABs so I think it's certain he is coming north with the team. As to the other players, I wonder if Pods might start with AAA on a rehab stint. I think BA is coming north as well. Mack and Ozuna are additional outfielders who will also see a smattering of infield time. Dye is without question. Apart from that, I'd say I hope you like NC style BBQ.

Santo - this is going nowhere. You take your walkers. I'll take hitters.

CLR01

03-16-2007, 10:00 PM

Whether anybody likes Erstad or not, he is on the team, Ozzie is getting him plenty of onfield time and ABs so I think it's certain he is coming north with the team. As to the other players, I wonder if Pods might start with AAA on a rehab stint. I think BA is coming north as well. Mack and Ozuna are additional outfielders who will also see a smattering of infield time. Dye is without question. Apart from that, I'd say I hope you like NC style BBQ.

I think Pods will be penciled in the one spot on opening day. Listening to Ozzie today I got the impression that Erstad is penciled in CF already too.

FarWestChicago

03-16-2007, 10:07 PM

You've been baiting people all offseason and play the same old song "I'm glad KW and Ozzie don't think like you" once people have explicitly made their points. You've done it with Craig Grebeck, and you did it SouthSide_Hitmen (huge Pods debate.)If Ozzie and KW thought like you and Craig Grebeck I would become a HUGE Dark Cloud. :o:

ondafarm

03-17-2007, 12:16 AM

I think Pods will be penciled in the one spot on opening day. Listening to Ozzie today I got the impression that Erstad is penciled in CF already too.

I had thought Ozzie had announced Ozuna and Erstad would be playing.

jabrch

03-17-2007, 04:50 AM

I had thought Ozzie had announced Ozuna and Erstad would be playing.

Pods will have to wait for Day 2 - he won't face Sabathia regardless of his health on opening day.

IlliniSox4Life

03-17-2007, 05:54 AM

AGREED ! He's probably been added to help BA and light a fire under Anderson as much as 4th outfield reasons.

Bottome line: The Sox NEED Anderson to step up and improve significantly on offense this year if they want to win the division because Erstad is not going to be a difference maker with whatever he has left.

I disagree. Given the rest of the team, Anderson's improvement could make the difference. If he sucks again i.e. the same as Erstad, then the offense won't be good enough to make up for this pitching staff.

If Uribe is the same as last year (likely )and CF production is the same as last year then this offense (like last year ) won't be enough.

I don't think you were watching Anderson make all those outs. What if he had hit .260 / .340 with 15-20 dingers ? You think the Sox could have made up 5 games ?

The pitching is likely to be comparable to last year - maybe slightly better. This is definitely going to be a dogfight for the Sox to make the playoffs. The only offensive position that the Sox can realistically hope for significant improvement is CF.

And, if it didn't matter what Anderson hits then why was Mackowiak out there mucking up CF last year and why is Erstad here now ?

April 06
Sox Record: 17-7
Anderson's BA: .161

May 06
Sox Record: 16-12
Anderson's BA: .167

June 06
Sox Record: 19-8
Anderson's BA: .196

July 06
Sox Record: 10-15
Anderson's BA: .313

August 06
Sox Record: 16-13
Anderson's BA: .296

Sept 06
Sox Record: 12-16
Anderson's BA: .200

The teams three best month's record wise were Anderson's 3 worst months average wise, and vice versa.

soxinem1

03-17-2007, 07:29 AM

Hmmm, different standards for different players:

Joe Crede came up from AAA and had a solid second half, then was chastised for his lack of production for the next two and a half years. Even Guillen said that they may be over-estimating what he could do with the bat. And other than 2005, no team he was on even won 90 games. But because he was developing nicely as a defensive player, he stayed in the line up as an everyday player.

Brian Anderson was the quasi-CF for the White Sox last year, who as a team lagged defensively in the middle INF and LF, but BA was made a scapegoat because he wasn't hitting enough in the #9 spot when his team was 52-27 going into July. The Sox were leading the universe in runs scored at the time, but because BA didn't hit at least .260 with 10HR's and 50RBI's, it wasn't good enough that Dye and himself were the only OF's worth a damn defensively.

Yep, it was all his fault! He didn't do more.

His own Manager even hit the panic button, saying AAA might be an option. Never mind the sky-high ERA's of Garcia and Garland at the time. Never mind Iguchi and Uribe barely being able to reach over and scoop up a grounder, or a bullpen that was sub-par from Day One of the season (because the GM over-estimated the coming performance of his SP's). Or do not forget to mention that the team never quite took off at any point last year.

It was all BA's fault.

I think he should be put in CF and left alone. Ozzie let the press and some fans dictate his line-up last year. This time, he should just let the kid play, and leave him alone.

I'll take BA everyday in CF over Erstad, Terrero, or anyone else they plan on trotting out there. They should give him the same patience that Crede and Garland were given.

Frater Perdurabo

03-17-2007, 07:34 AM

Hmmm, different standards for different players:

Joe Crede came up from AAA and had a solid second half, then was chastised fr his lack of production for the next two and a half years. Even Guillen said that they may be over-estimating what he could do with the bat. And other than 2005, no team he was on even won 90 games. But because he was developing as a defensive player, he stayed in the line up as an everyday player.

Brian Anderson was the quasi-CF for the White Sox last year, who lagged defensively in the middle INF and LF, but was made a scapegoat because he wasn't hitting enough in the #9 spot when his team was 52-27 going into July. The Sox were leading the universe in runs scored at the time, but because BA didn't hit at least .260 with 10HR's and 50RBI's, it wasn't good enough that Dye and himself were the only OF's worth a damn defensively.

Yep, it was all his fault! He didn't do more.

His own Manager even hit the panic button, saying AAA might be an option. Never mind the sky-high ERA's of Garcia and Garland at the time. Never mind Iguchi and Uribe barely being able to reach over and scoop up a grounder, or a bullpen that was sub-par from Day One of the season (because the GM over-estimated the coming performance of his SP's). Or do not forget to mention that the team never quite took off at any point last year.

It was all BA's fault.

I think he should be put in CF and left alone. Ozzie let the press and some fans dictate his line-up last year. This time, he should just let the kid play, and leave him alone.

I'll take BA everyday in CF over Erstad, Terrero, or anyone else they plan on trotting out there. They should give him the same patience that Crede and Garland were given.

Amen and Amen!

I'm quoting this post because everyone should re-read it. The only part with which I quibble is the second to last paragraph. Remember, Ozzie makes the ****** lineups.
:D:

soxinem1

03-17-2007, 07:51 AM

Amen and Amen!

I'm quoting this post because everyone should re-read it. The only part with which I quibble is the second to last paragraph. Remember, Ozzie makes the ****** lineups.
:D:

Ozzie's own words have always mentioned defense as a priority, yet it was him who used such defensive studs as Ozua in LF and Mackowiak in CF repeatedly, as the team sunk, and sunk, and sunk........ Why did he change his philosophy? :smile:

ChiTownTrojan

03-17-2007, 11:09 AM

Hmmm, different standards for different players:

Joe Crede came up from AAA and had a solid second half, then was chastised for his lack of production for the next two and a half years. Even Guillen said that they may be over-estimating what he could do with the bat. And other than 2005, no team he was on even won 90 games. But because he was developing nicely as a defensive player, he stayed in the line up as an everyday player.

Brian Anderson was the quasi-CF for the White Sox last year, who as a team lagged defensively in the middle INF and LF, but BA was made a scapegoat because he wasn't hitting enough in the #9 spot when his team was 52-27 going into July. The Sox were leading the universe in runs scored at the time, but because BA didn't hit at least .260 with 10HR's and 50RBI's, it wasn't good enough that Dye and himself were the only OF's worth a damn defensively.

Yep, it was all his fault! He didn't do more.

His own Manager even hit the panic button, saying AAA might be an option. Never mind the sky-high ERA's of Garcia and Garland at the time. Never mind Iguchi and Uribe barely being able to reach over and scoop up a grounder, or a bullpen that was sub-par from Day One of the season (because the GM over-estimated the coming performance of his SP's). Or do not forget to mention that the team never quite took off at any point last year.

It was all BA's fault.

I think he should be put in CF and left alone. Ozzie let the press and some fans dictate his line-up last year. This time, he should just let the kid play, and leave him alone.

I'll take BA everyday in CF over Erstad, Terrero, or anyone else they plan on trotting out there. They should give him the same patience that Crede and Garland were given.
Best post I've read in a while. Thank you for saying something that makes sense. Ozzie, please let Anderson play!

CLR01

03-17-2007, 11:28 AM

I had thought Ozzie had announced Ozuna and Erstad would be playing.

Maybe on opening day. What I am saying is I doubt that Pods will be kept back on a rehab assignment. I predict him to be in Chicago to start the season.

DrGozzie

03-17-2007, 05:56 PM

Soxinem1, I had the same reaction to your post as Frater - amen!!!

Gregory Pratt

03-17-2007, 06:35 PM

If Erstad can play quality, competent defense, BA should be sent down to work on that hideous swing of his.
Erstad can play quality, competent defense, and hit well enough (better than BA this year), so Anderson should go down and fix his slow, ugly swing.

Tragg

03-17-2007, 06:49 PM

I'll join the salutations.

Great post Soxinem!

Play Anderson, bat him 9th and forget about it.

TomBradley72

03-17-2007, 06:51 PM

Hmmm, different standards for different players:

Joe Crede came up from AAA and had a solid second half, then was chastised for his lack of production for the next two and a half years. Even Guillen said that they may be over-estimating what he could do with the bat. And other than 2005, no team he was on even won 90 games. But because he was developing nicely as a defensive player, he stayed in the line up as an everyday player.

Brian Anderson was the quasi-CF for the White Sox last year, who as a team lagged defensively in the middle INF and LF, but BA was made a scapegoat because he wasn't hitting enough in the #9 spot when his team was 52-27 going into July.

The Crede/Anderson comparison isn't really valid...Crede's 1st three full seasons he produced: .261-19-75, .239-21-69, and .252-22-62 while playing great defense.

In Anderson's 1st year he was .225-8-33, and was .192-5-20 at the All Star break...those numbers would concern ANY MLB franchise, manager or fan base for a starting CF on a contending team.

DickAllen72

03-17-2007, 07:56 PM

Brian Anderson injured himself on a swing this afternoon and couldn't complete running to first base. He left the field limping.

Any word/update on his condition? How does this affect his chances of starting on the 25 man roster now? Please post any updates here. I haven't been able to find any news yet.

Brian Anderson has the potential to be a good player, but after watching him at the plate Thursday and again today, it's obvious he's not quite major league ready yet. He keeps jumping back at every strike over the inside part of the plate and the opposition is beginning to pound him inside pitch after pitch. He looked silly on that swing on which he hurt himself today.

I hope he's OK so he doesn't have to go on the DL, but it may be better for him to start the season in AAA so he can work on his new approach at the plate while starting everyday. If the Sox need him, he's only a phone call away.

SOXandILLINI

03-17-2007, 08:19 PM

the way he pulled up, it looked like a hammy, been there, done that.:(:

DickAllen72

03-17-2007, 08:27 PM

the way he pulled up, it looked like a hammy, been there, done that.:(:

I hope it's not too bad -- it didn't look good. Hawk even said it looked like he could have pulled an oblique, a hamstring and an achilles all at once. Ouch! :o:

Center fielder Brian Anderson insisted his right ankle was fine after limping to first base on a grounder for the second out of the ninth in a loss to the Angels.

Anderson said he initially rolled the ankle during batting practice and then aggravated it in his last at-bat while taking a hard swing and miss that caused him to tumble.

Anderson barely attempted to run to first after getting jammed by Alex Serrano.

"It freaked me out. When I went out of the box, I told myself I'll take the out because I don't want to do anything stupid," Anderson said.

soxinem1

03-17-2007, 10:14 PM

The Crede/Anderson comparison isn't really valid...Crede's 1st three full seasons he produced: .261-19-75, .239-21-69, and .252-22-62 while playing great defense.

In Anderson's 1st year he was .225-8-33, and was .192-5-20 at the All Star break...those numbers would concern ANY MLB franchise, manager or fan base for a starting CF on a contending team.

You raise a valid point, but Crede was kept in the line up on an every day basis, and rarely hit in the nine spot. Both Manuel and Guillen deserve credit for letting Crede play. Same with Garland. He kept his rotation spot through some treacherous stretches for three straight years.

But Anderson has not been given that chance. He barely had 300 AB's in 2006. He spent less than three full years in the minors, while Crede played almost six full seasons worth of minor league ball. So if you are going to move a player along that quickly, then you should at least give him the playing time to continue progressing.

Billy Koch was given more of an opportunity to show (or should we say blow) what he could do, well after his stuff was gone.

Juan Uribe went through a few long brutal stretches last year, and his defense was lacking too. His whole game was off, his conditionng was bad (his playing weight last year was about 230!), yet he kept getting sent out there when he barely maintained a .220 average most of the year.

The irony to me was, as BA's playing time decreased, so did the teams ability to score. The team ERA also balooned up even more. Sure, he was hitting about the same as a NL pitcher, but what happened to Ozzie saying that 'We need to see if he can play at this level', or 'He's my CF'? Sure, he had some hideous looking AB's early on, but when he started hitting, he was played less frequently.

nodiggity59

03-18-2007, 01:44 AM

but when he started hitting, he was played less frequently.

That's because Ozzie put him in favorable match ups.

As I am writing this post, Brian Anderson has no place being an everyday player for a team contending for the playoffs. If he was starting for the Indians, I'd be crying from tears of laughter.

You can argue over whether the alternatives are any better, but to me the main fact remains that BA is not an average regular by any stretch of the imagination. No more than Caesar Izturis or other defensive specialists.

I think the BA lovers are losing sleep over a guy who'll likely be a .275 / 18 / 75 player in his heyday while playing great defense. Do I hope he turns into that guy for the Sox? Sure, but right now we have championships to win.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 02:23 AM

That's because Ozzie put him in favorable match ups.

As I am writing this post, Brian Anderson has no place being an everyday player for a team contending for the playoffs. If he was starting for the Indians, I'd be crying from tears of laughter.

You can argue over whether the alternatives are any better, but to me the main fact remains that BA is not an average regular by any stretch of the imagination. No more than Caesar Izturis or other defensive specialists.

I think the BA lovers are losing sleep over a guy who'll likely be a .275 / 18 / 75 player in his heyday while playing great defense. Do I hope he turns into that guy for the Sox? Sure, but right now we have championships to win.

:rolleyes:
You do realize that Jeter and Rivera were ROOKIES when they both won in 1996, right? Not to mention John Lackey won GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES as a ROOKIE.

:jenks:
"Hey, I was a rookie when we won in 2005 remember.But you're right, rookies should play a role in winning a World Championship, even if they can throw a 100mph with a curveball and strike out future hall of fame players in the process".

jabrch

03-18-2007, 08:55 AM

As I am writing this post, Brian Anderson has no place being an everyday player for a team contending for the playoffs. If he was starting for the Indians, I'd be crying from tears of laughter.

That's completely ridiculous.

TomBradley72

03-18-2007, 09:31 AM

But Anderson has not been given that chance. He barely had 300 AB's in 2006. He spent less than three full years in the minors, while Crede played almost six full seasons worth of minor league ball. So if you are going to move a player along that quickly, then you should at least give him the playing time to continue progressing.

Keep in mind Anderson played for a major college baseball program for 4 years while Crede came up through the minors after being drafted our of high school.

As far as 2006 goes...Ozzie was schizophrenic in his strategy (high priority on good defense but then playing Mack in CF even though the problem wasn't our run production is was our team ERA)....but if Erstad (a former Gold Glover) stays healthy and proves to have adequate range he may be the better option for winning in 2007 vs. the long haul. With the status of Dye, Beuhrle, Iguchi for 2008 and beyond in question..plus Thome getting a year older...they need to go for it now vs. long term player development.

Tragg

03-18-2007, 09:53 AM

Keep in mind Anderson played for a major college baseball program for 4 years while Crede came up through the minors after being drafted our of high school.

As far as 2006 goes...Ozzie was schizophrenic in his strategy (high priority on good defense but then playing Mack in CF even though the problem wasn't our run production is was our team ERA)....but if Erstad (a former Gold Glover) stays healthy and proves to have adequate range he may be the better option for winning in 2007 vs. the long haul.
The problem with Erstad is that he's a lousy hitter himself. 5 straight years with under 10 homers, below average opb in 8 of his last 10 seasons.
At least with Anderson we get stellar defense and the chance that a young player who has hit at all levels will improve.
If we dont' like Anderson we should trade him (which is what Kenny/Ozzie usually do with players they don't like - beats getting nothing for them) but get a real CF to do the job.

Center fielder Brian Anderson insisted his right ankle was fine after limping to first base on a grounder for the second out of the ninth in a loss to the Angels.

Anderson said he initially rolled the ankle during batting practice and then aggravated it in his last at-bat while taking a hard swing and miss that caused him to tumble.

Anderson barely attempted to run to first after getting jammed by Alex Serrano.

"It freaked me out. When I went out of the box, I told myself I'll take the out because I don't want to do anything stupid," Anderson said.

Extra bases: Anderson twisted his right ankle in the ninth inning of Sunday's game, but he was not believed to be seriously injured. "I kind of rolled over it," Anderson said. "When I saw it give out, it kind of freaked me out a little bit. But I'm fine."

The problem with Erstad is that he's a lousy hitter himself. 5 straight years with under 10 homers, below average opb in 8 of his last 10 seasons.

He's a .284/.341 hitter on his career. He's not a power hitter, so I don't really care what his slg/HR is. In his last two near-full seasons (2004 and 2005) he went about .280/.335. Is he great? Nope. But lousy? I think that's a gross exaggeration. He's particularly effective when shielded from facing LHP (.293/.349)

I know some people want to find reasons to hate him because he's the antithesis of a "moneyball" player, but you have to look at our roster and understand what he will be asked to do. He won't face many lefties. He won't need to get 500 ABs. He will play solid D in LF and at least (if not better) average D in CF. He will hit the ball well. He's decent at handling the bat.

Nobody is saying he is a great player - but the "Erstad is lousy stuff" is really unfounded. It's way to early to draw that conclusion based on the data available to us.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 12:35 PM

Keep in mind Anderson played for a major college baseball program for 4 years while Crede came up through the minors after being drafted our of high school.

As far as 2006 goes...Ozzie was schizophrenic in his strategy (high priority on good defense but then playing Mack in CF even though the problem wasn't our run production is was our team ERA)....but if Erstad (a former Gold Glover) stays healthy and proves to have adequate range he may be the better option for winning in 2007 vs. the long haul. With the status of Dye, Beuhrle, Iguchi for 2008 and beyond in question..plus Thome getting a year older...they need to go for it now vs. long term player development.

There's a big difference between hitting with a aluminum bat against a bunch of people that probably won't get drafted and putting up MVP numbers with a wooden bat in a league where most of those players are just fine tuning their skills for the majors.

Craig Grebeck

03-18-2007, 12:49 PM

Oh, please. If Erstad isn't lousy I don't know who is. You should care about his slugging percentage considering he's not very good at anything else. If someone has that kind of OBP at the top of the order, they better bring some sort of non-single ability.

He is lousy, check the last five years, they were horrendous.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 01:02 PM

Oh, please. If Erstad isn't lousy I don't know who is. You should care about his slugging percentage considering he's not very good at anything else. If someone has that kind of OBP at the top of the order, they better bring some sort of non-single ability.

He is lousy, check the last five years, they were horrendous.

It's not all about the OBP Grebeck. It's also about doing the little things and getting the key hits. What is it with you FOBB people and your hatred for Erstad.

Tragg

03-18-2007, 01:09 PM

He's a .284/.341 hitter on his career. He's not a power hitter, so I don't really care what his slg/HR is. In his last two near-full seasons (2004 and 2005) he went about .280/.335. Is he great? Nope. But lousy? I think that's a gross exaggeration. He's particularly effective when shielded from facing LHP (.293/.349)

I know some people want to find reasons to hate him because he's the antithesis of a "moneyball" player, but you have to look at our roster and understand what he will be asked to do. He won't face many lefties. He won't need to get 500 ABs. He will play solid D in LF and at least (if not better) average D in CF. He will hit the ball well. He's decent at handling the bat.

Nobody is saying he is a great player - but the "Erstad is lousy stuff" is really unfounded. It's way to early to draw that conclusion based on the data available to us.

I offered data - It's not unfounded at all. .341 is an AVERAGE OBP. His power is below average. Further, he has met that career average OBP only twice since 1998, so calling him a .341 OBP player is deceptive. He's a slap hitter who doesn't get on base much - I don't think you need to be a moneyball adherent to find that level of offense less than stellar.

Lousy is just an easier way to say well below average.

I never bitched about signing him....he can play 1st, he can play outfield and should be a useful bench player.
BENCH player. But as an everyday center fielder, then call the Astros and try to get Taveras (which shouldn't cost much) - another slap hitter with no eye that guillen seems to like BUT who's young and fast.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 01:16 PM

I offered data - It's not unfounded at all. .341 is an AVERAGE OBP. His power is below average. Further, he has met that career average OBP only twice since 1998, so calling him a .341 OBP player is deceptive. He's a slap hitter who doesn't get on base much - I don't think you need to be a moneyball adherent to find that level of offense less than stellar.

Lousy is just an easier way to say well below average.

I never bitched about signing him....he can play 1st, he can play outfield and should be a useful bench player.
BENCH player. But as an everyday center fielder, then call the Astros and try to get Taveras (which shouldn't cost much) - another slap hitter with no eye that guillen seems to like BUT who's young and fast.

Taveras along with, Hirsh and another player got traded to the Rockies last December.

TomBradley72

03-18-2007, 01:35 PM

There's a big difference between hitting with a aluminum bat against a bunch of people that probably won't get drafted and putting up MVP numbers with a wooden bat in a league where most of those players are just fine tuning their skills for the majors.

Fair enough..but I was responding to the comments around Anderson being "rushed" to the majors....he had several full seasons of minor league ball following playing in one of the top college programs. I don't believe he was rushed. Crede was 25 during his first full season in MLB. Anderson was 24.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 01:43 PM

Fair enough..but I was responding to the comments around Anderson being "rushed" to the majors....he had several full seasons of minor league ball following playing in one of the top college programs. I don't believe he was rushed. Crede was 25 during his first full season in MLB. Anderson was 24.

Well, when you put it that way, then I definitely see your point.

Craig Grebeck

03-18-2007, 01:44 PM

It's not all about the OBP Grebeck. It's also about doing the little things and getting the key hits. What is it with you FOBB people and your hatred for Erstad.
You're right, it's not all about OBP. It can be about SLG or defense (used to be very good in CF, now, not so much) or just being the best that the organization has to offer, none of which apply to Erstad.

Anderson is getting the shaft, plain and simple.

IndianWhiteSox

03-18-2007, 01:46 PM

You're right, it's not all about OBP. It can be about SLG or defense (used to be very good in CF, now, not so much) or just being the best that the organization has to offer, none of which apply to Erstad.

Anderson is getting the shaft, plain and simple.

I agree with you on the Anderson part as I've said in previous posts that he will be a great #2 hitter this year.

CLR01

03-18-2007, 01:53 PM

I agree with you on the Anderson part as I've said in previous posts that he will be a great #2 hitter this year.

That may be a bit of a stretch and really he just needs to be an adequate #9.

ChiTownTrojan

03-18-2007, 03:05 PM

You're right, it's not all about OBP. It can be about SLG or defense (used to be very good in CF, now, not so much) or just being the best that the organization has to offer, none of which apply to Erstad.

Anderson is getting the shaft, plain and simple.
I want Anderson to play as much as anyone, but it's looking more and more like he's going to start the season at AAA. That might not be the worst thing in the world, as he could get some good experience playing every day and get his confidence up hitting against AAA pitching. I would expect him to be called up hopefully by June, though. I expect that Terrero and Erstad could hold down CF until then.

Tragg

03-18-2007, 03:31 PM

Taveras along with, Hirsh and another player got traded to the Rockies last December.
Well my bad and thanks for the correction.

Anyway, if Guillen doesn't want Anderson, then let's get a legitimate CF in here.

santo=dorf

03-18-2007, 06:30 PM

Oh, please. If Erstad isn't lousy I don't know who is. You should care about his slugging percentage considering he's not very good at anything else. If someone has that kind of OBP at the top of the order, they better bring some sort of non-single ability.

He is lousy, check the last five years, they were horrendous.
Erstad looks to be in mid-season form right now. .298/.320/.362
Anderson .276/.353/.448

Of course these are evil, possibiliy misleading spring training stats, but Anderson has been the better hitter. Yes, I see the difference in batting average, but Anderson hits aren't just a bunch of singles, is getting on base at at much better rate, and his BB/K is 1.00.

Frater Perdurabo

03-18-2007, 06:42 PM

Erstad looks to be in mid-season form right now. .298/.320/.362
Anderson .276/.353/.448

Of course these are evil, possibiliy misleading spring training stats, but Anderson has been the better hitter. Yes, I see the difference in batting average, but Anderson hits aren't just a bunch of singles, is getting on base at at much better rate, and his BB/K is 1.00.

I think there's room on this roster for both: Anderson starts most games in CF, Erstad gets 2-3 starts per week equally divided between left and center. When Erstad starts in CF, the late-inning defensive shift can have Anderson come off the bench to play CF with Erstad sliding over to LF, with Pods going to the bench. Erstad also would be the late-inning defensive replacement for Pods in left when Anderson and Pods start a game. This way, Anderson gets the vast majority of innings in CF while still getting to avoid some of the most troublesome RH starting pitchers.

:tomatoaward :tomatoaward

JB98

03-18-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree with you on the Anderson part as I've said in previous posts that he will be a great #2 hitter this year.

We are most lucky to have both of these guys. We should be able to leverage both of their skills. Neither are great players, but both do certain things well and both will help us to win games. I see no problem with each of BA, Erstad and Podsednik splitting LF and CF pretty evenly between them. In fact, I like that.

We are most lucky to have both of these guys. We should be able to leverage both of their skills. Neither are great players, but both do certain things well and both will help us to win games. I see no problem with each of BA, Erstad and Podsednik splitting LF and CF pretty evenly between them. In fact, I like that.

Even people who believe BA should be the regular CF should be able to recognize that he should hit no higher than eighth in this batting order. I'm not aboard the "Move Tadahito down" train. I think our lineup is fine with Iguchi batting second.

You know what I hate about this argument? Here's the two things Anderson's supporters always fall back on:

Nor are either of them true. Mackowiak is good if he is used correctly. And even when Joe Crede "sucked" he was hitting 20 HRs, playing GG calibre 3B, and he had already shown that he was a good hitter in the minors and that there was reason to believe he has hitting skills.

JB98

03-18-2007, 10:23 PM

Nor are either of them true. Mackowiak is good if he is used correctly. And even when Joe Crede "sucked" he was hitting 20 HRs, playing GG calibre 3B, and he had already shown that he was a good hitter in the minors and that there was reason to believe he has hitting skills.

On these things I generally agree. I like Mackowiak, and I've been ripped a new ******* multiple times on WSI for defending him. Crede is one of my favorite players.

But again, none of that stuff has much to do with whether Brian Anderson is the answer for us in CF. I've heard the Crede-Anderson comparison at least 100 times. Personally, I don't buy it because I'm not certain Anderson has the same work ethic and attitude that Crede has. I'm hoping last year's events have changed BA for the better. We'll find out soon enough.

I just don't believe these conspiracy theories about Ozzie having it in for BA. Ozzie was pissed at BA because he hit the ball poorly last year, and he didn't seem to be taking responsibility for his career. I don't think there is a "personal vendetta" as many here assert. Ozzie has tried to push Brian's buttons in order to get him to work harder and improve his game. If it works, the Sox will be better for it. The status quo from last season is not acceptable. That's the bottom line.

Craig Grebeck

03-18-2007, 10:28 PM

I like Mac, and I like Anderson. I'd love Mac/Anderson/Dye in the OF.

areilly

03-18-2007, 10:41 PM

:rolleyes:
You do realize that Jeter and Rivera were ROOKIES when they both won in 1996, right? Not to mention John Lackey won GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES as a ROOKIE.

This...I'm speechless.

Of course Jeter, Rivera and Lackey won. Not only did they individually shine in their rookie years, their teams didn't have struggling rookies bogging down their rosters. Same for Big Bobby J in 2005.

Nellie_Fox

03-19-2007, 01:51 AM

I agree with you on the Anderson part as I've said in previous posts that he will be a great #2 hitter this year.And you continue to be wrong. A #2 has to be patient and not strike out a lot. Anderson fails on both counts.

Mohoney

03-19-2007, 06:31 AM

Even people who believe BA should be the regular CF should be able to recognize that he should hit no higher than eighth in this batting order. I'm not aboard the "Move Tadahito down" train. I think our lineup is fine with Iguchi batting second.

I'll go one further and say that, in this current roster configuration, if anyone other than Iguchi bats 2nd, Ozzie needs to have his head examined.

This team needs Pods and Gooch 1,2. If this doesn't work, we're screwed anyway, unless we get pitching through the roof.

IndianWhiteSox

03-19-2007, 10:08 AM

And you continue to be wrong. A #2 has to be patient and not strike out a lot. Anderson fails on both counts.

I respect your opinions and all, but the fact is in the second half of the year Anderson started to make progress in cutting down his strike-outs and making more contact. Oh well, only time will tell on these things, I just hope that for once the SOX develop a player who can hit #2 in the lineup.

Gammons Peter

03-19-2007, 11:47 AM

I respect your opinions and all, but the fact is in the second half of the year Anderson started to make progress in cutting down his strike-outs and making more contact. Oh well, only time will tell on these things, I just hope that for once the SOX develop a player who can hit #2 in the lineup.

Look at September/Oct
His 13 hits in 70 AB's (.185) to end the season really showed progress

jabrch

03-19-2007, 12:36 PM

Look at September/Oct
His 13 hits in 70 AB's (.185) to end the season really showed progress

Crede hit that low for one month. BA hit that low for the entire season. There's a world of difference.

IndianWhiteSox

03-19-2007, 01:13 PM

Crede hit that low for one month. BA hit that low for the entire season. There's a world of difference.

How can he fine-tune his game unless he plays everyday?

He made progress in July and August and not to mention when Crede was a rookie until now, he played just about every game regardless of how he did statistically. If the Sox are really going to return to Ozzieball, then they better make sure that they have him in CF everyday regardless. I don't want to hear that they lost a ton of games due to pitching, because if you don't have the best "D"(or at least above average) on the field then your pitchers then come under even more duress to make the right pitches to get out of innings. Just remember that a solid "D" and run support(but mainly solid "D") are a pitcher's best friends. I just can remember countless times that Mac would butcher a few plays in CF and the pitchers would just get deflated and give up the big hit.

Flight #24

03-19-2007, 01:14 PM

I didn't see it mentioned explicitly in the thread (but honestly, I didn't read every post for 15 pages), but FWLIW, Ozzie has apparently said Erstad "will bat 2d against righties". Implying that he's going to play CF against RHP at least to start the season (since I assume Pods/Ozuna are leading off and playing LF which pushes Darin to CF).

I think it's a mistake because I think Anderson is a superior defender and will hit decently. However, I think it'll still be a plus position for the Sox because Erstad will field at an above average level in CF, will hit for a similar or better average than BA and will execute in the #2 slot, something I'm not sure BA is ready to do yet.

I do think that this will likely end by June, primarily because I'm not sure Erstad can play regularly and not get nicked up enough to affect his performance.

RowanDye

03-19-2007, 01:37 PM

I think it's a mistake because I think Anderson is a superior defender and will hit decently. However, I think it'll still be a plus position for the Sox[...]

I'm a little confused as to whether or not you think starting Erstad in center is a good thing? If Erstad makes it a plus position, then how is it a mistake?

Flight #24

03-19-2007, 02:05 PM

I'm a little confused as to whether or not you think starting Erstad in center is a good thing? If Erstad makes it a plus position, then how is it a mistake?

Erstad will be good, I just think Anderson will be better defensively, and long-term. Also, I think Erstad's value is less if he plays every day because he's likely IMO to wear down if used too much, esp early on.

maurice

03-19-2007, 02:14 PM

This makes no sense. Ozzie says that he plans to have Erstad starting every day v. RHP with Podsednik leading off and playing LF. According to his prior statements this means Anderson to AAA, despite playing well in limited Spring Training action. (I guess he never had a chance with Ozzie.) So who plays against LHP? Unless Erstad is going to start against them also, that means Luis Terrero (who Ozzie says he "loves") will be starting a large % of games, and you'll probably see Ozuna in LF v. LHP more often than not.

To summarize: Lots of PT for Terrero and Ozuna. Regular starts for Erstad and Podsednik (until one or both get injured from excessive PT and go on the DL or hide the injury and start uber-sucking). No starts for Anderson.

This is a disturbing plan.

SABRSox

03-19-2007, 02:15 PM

I didn't see it mentioned explicitly in the thread (but honestly, I didn't read every post for 15 pages), but FWLIW, Ozzie has apparently said Erstad "will bat 2d against righties". Implying that he's going to play CF against RHP at least to start the season (since I assume Pods/Ozuna are leading off and playing LF which pushes Darin to CF).

I think it's a mistake because I think Anderson is a superior defender and will hit decently. However, I think it'll still be a plus position for the Sox because Erstad will field at an above average level in CF, will hit for a similar or better average than BA and will execute in the #2 slot, something I'm not sure BA is ready to do yet.

I do think that this will likely end by June, primarily because I'm not sure Erstad can play regularly and not get nicked up enough to affect his performance.

I'm still not sold on Pods being with the team on opening day. I know Ozzie says he's ready to go, and so does Pods, but Pods always rushes back to his detriment. Luckily Kenny's got the final say, and I'm hoping that Kenny keeps Pods in Arizona until he's 100%.

SBSoxFan

03-19-2007, 02:19 PM

This makes no sense.

I think it does a little. Anderson can afford to be sent down since he has options left, not so for Terrero. This gives you the chance to play Terrero and see if his Spring was an aberration. If so, you release him, and bring Anderson back up.

IndianWhiteSox

03-19-2007, 02:25 PM

I think it does a little. Anderson can afford to be sent down since he has options left, not so for Terrero. This gives you the chance to play Terrero and see if his Spring was an aberration. If so, you release him, and bring Anderson back up.

Actually, since he was signed to a minor league deal, he can technically get sent down again.

soxfan13

03-19-2007, 02:44 PM

Actually, since he was signed to a minor league deal, he can technically get sent down again.

Actually I think Terrero is a player that is out of options and must break camp with the big league team. I think if they want to send him to AAA he must clear waivers? Anybody know?

SBSoxFan

03-19-2007, 02:45 PM

Actually I think Terrero is a player that is out of options and must break camp with the big league team. I think if they want to send him to AAA he must clear waivers? Anybody know?

That was my understanding as well.

IndianWhiteSox

03-19-2007, 02:46 PM

Actually I think Terrero is a player that is out of options and must break camp with the big league team. I think if they want to send him to AAA he must clear waivers? Anybody know?

I thought that with minor league deals, that if they don't make it then they just play in AAA, since that's what they were signed to do anyway. But I'm not an expert so if anyone knows, please tell.

jabrch

03-19-2007, 03:25 PM

Crede hit that low for one month. BA hit that low for the entire season. There's a world of difference.

No - BA hit .225 on the season, and he did it with a very strong July and August. (.300+ avg/.350+ obp) in his rookie year.

You don't really want me to look through all the history of players who have had bad 1/2s or 3/4s of their rookie year and went on to have HOF calibre careers? Not that I'm saying BA is due for HOF, but I'm just saying you can't condemn BA to a bad season because of his bad 3/4 last year.

Craig Grebeck

03-19-2007, 06:02 PM

Nice move Ozzie! Let's hope Darin Erstad keeps up his hot spring. I don't know about you guys but I'll take .275/.302/.333/.635 everyday of the week!

santo=dorf

03-19-2007, 06:39 PM

And you continue to be wrong. A #2 has to be patient and not strike out a lot. Anderson fails on both counts.
Said, how did Erstad do today? 3 K's I see. He leads the team in K's and he has only drawn two walks.

Tragg

03-19-2007, 06:58 PM

What kind of hitter is Terrerro?
Is he another no power, no walk slap hitter that Guillen likes like Ozuna and Erstadt?
Or does he offer something new and different like power and/or plate discipline?

KRS1

03-19-2007, 07:03 PM

What kind of hitter is Terrerro?
Is he another no power, no walk slap hitter that Guillen likes like Ozuna and Erstadt?
Or does he offer something new and different like power and/or plate discipline?

He's definitely got the power. Just poor patience, presense, and eye at the plate.

I hate to get into this argument, as Ive seen the way it's going, however I have to say it. Erstad has no business at the top of our order. I get it, "but he's a grinder, a vet, and a great clubhouse presense," fantastic, let him provide that stuff coming off the bench where he belongs, and would best serve us. So far I've seen zero patience at the plate, and very few solid hits off the bat of Erstad. I really hope he does well, but for all the talk about not handing players spots, it appears Ozzie is doing just that with Darin, when he's done nothing to earn such a pass other than being a respected vet with a great "Ozzie-ball" attitude.

balke

03-19-2007, 07:28 PM

He's definitely got the power. Just poor patience, presense, and eye at the plate.

I hate to get into this argument, as Ive seen the way it's going, however I have to say it. Erstad has no business at the top of our order. I get it, "but he's a grinder, a vet, and a great clubhouse presense," fantastic, let him provide that stuff coming off the bench where he belongs, and would best serve us. So far I've seen zero patience at the plate, and very few solid hits off the bat of Erstad. I really hope he does well, but for all the talk about not handing players spots, it appears Ozzie is doing just that with Darin, when he's done nothing to earn such a pass other than being a respected vet with a great "Ozzie-ball" attitude.

Yeah, right now I'm thinking Kenny's man-crush earned the sox some dead weight. It was a good idea in case BA comes out and sucks, but right now there's not a lot of space for Erstad. I'd rather have BA's glove, youth, power, and potential right now. I'll be wrong if he hits at all like last season, but if Erstad hits like he has the past 4 seasons, he's not really offering the Sox that much.

Now that we got rid of Gload, he's our back-up to PK though, so I don't know what to think.

JB98

03-19-2007, 08:02 PM

How can he fine-tune his game unless he plays everyday?

He made progress in July and August and not to mention when Crede was a rookie until now, he played just about every game regardless of how he did statistically. If the Sox are really going to return to Ozzieball, then they better make sure that they have him in CF everyday regardless. I don't want to hear that they lost a ton of games due to pitching, because if you don't have the best "D"(or at least above average) on the field then your pitchers then come under even more duress to make the right pitches to get out of innings. Just remember that a solid "D" and run support(but mainly solid "D") are a pitcher's best friends. I just can remember countless times that Mac would butcher a few plays in CF and the pitchers would just get deflated and give up the big hit.

If the goal is for BA to "fine-tune" his game, he can do that in triple-A. The White Sox are not in rebuilding mode. They are not trying to develop young talent at the big-league level. They are trying to win a championship. Ozzie has to play whoever he thinks gives us the best chance to win, because if we don't win, it's his ass.

Craig Grebeck

03-19-2007, 08:16 PM

If the goal is for BA to "fine-tune" his game, he can do that in triple-A. The White Sox are not in rebuilding mode. They are not trying to develop young talent at the big-league level. They are trying to win a championship. Ozzie has to play whoever he thinks gives us the best chance to win, because if we don't win, it's his ass.
If putting Erstad in the 2 slot is his idea of putting us in position to win, we need to find a new manager.

JB98

03-19-2007, 08:22 PM

If putting Erstad in the 2 slot is his idea of putting us in position to win, we need to find a new manager.

I'm on the record as saying Iguchi should continue to bat second. I don't think it's broke. It doesn't need to be fixed.

ChiTownTrojan

03-19-2007, 08:55 PM

If putting Erstad in the 2 slot is his idea of putting us in position to win, we need to find a new manager.
Living in L.A., I haven't been able to watch the Sox much this year, but Saturday's game was on because they were playing the Angels. The second time through the order, someone (I think it was Ozuna) got on ahead of Erstad, who moved him over nicely with a grounder to 2B. Exactly the type of "handling the bat" that you want from your #2 hitter. The Angels announcers were talking about how that's the type of thing Erstad would always do when he was in Anaheim. Now that was the only game I've watched him play this spring, so it's a small sample for me to go on. But the Angels announcers have seen more of him than any of us, and they were praising the way he would handle the #2 spot. Take if for what it's worth.

Craig Grebeck

03-19-2007, 09:31 PM

Living in L.A., I haven't been able to watch the Sox much this year, but Saturday's game was on because they were playing the Angels. The second time through the order, someone (I think it was Ozuna) got on ahead of Erstad, who moved him over nicely with a grounder to 2B. Exactly the type of "handling the bat" that you want from your #2 hitter. The Angels announcers were talking about how that's the type of thing Erstad would always do when he was in Anaheim. Now that was the only game I've watched him play this spring, so it's a small sample for me to go on. But the Angels announcers have seen more of him than any of us, and they were praising the way he would handle the #2 spot. Take if for what it's worth.
When you have a 3-4-5 like ours, it's completely useless to waste outs like that in the early innings. If Erstad can come in and bunt when it is actually rational, that's fine. But we don't have an offensively devoid team, we need guys to get on base in front of our mashers.

ondafarm

03-19-2007, 10:06 PM

If putting Erstad in the 2 slot is his idea of putting us in position to win, we need to find a new manager.

Having two players who can competently bat in every position is just as important as having two on your roster who can play every defensive position. Just as important to competeing throughout the season that is. It helps if one is a lefty and one a righty. The Sox got caught last year with only one competent lead-off man and he had a bad year. Erstad is relatively cheap insurance and capable, not the team's best, but capable, in either lead-off or the number two hole, the other key offensive spot in small ball games.

jabrch

03-19-2007, 11:20 PM

Having two players who can competently bat in every position is just as important as having two on your roster who can play every defensive position. Just as important to competeing throughout the season that is. It helps if one is a lefty and one a righty. The Sox got caught last year with only one competent lead-off man and he had a bad year. Erstad is relatively cheap insurance and capable, not the team's best, but capable, in either lead-off or the number two hole, the other key offensive spot in small ball games.

I totally agree. One nice thing about this team is how deep we truly are. At every position we have a guy who COULD step up and play every day and be at least marginally effective if the starter goes down. It's a long season - in 162 game season it is nice to not have to have guys play 160 games to win.

Most AL teams aren't as deep as ours is.

Nellie_Fox

03-20-2007, 12:06 AM

Said, how did Erstad do today? 3 K's I see. He leads the team in K's and he has only drawn two walks.What's your point? I never said Erstad would make a good #2; I just said Anderson would not. Don't argue with things I didn't say.

SABRSox

03-20-2007, 01:22 AM

I totally agree. One nice thing about this team is how deep we truly are. At every position we have a guy who COULD step up and play every day and be at least marginally effective if the starter goes down. It's a long season - in 162 game season it is nice to not have to have guys play 160 games to win.

Most AL teams aren't as deep as ours is.

That may be, but the problems occur when the bench and role players are made starters. There's no reason BA shouldn't be the starting CF.

spiffie

03-20-2007, 01:25 AM

When you have a 3-4-5 like ours, it's completely useless to waste outs like that in the early innings. If Erstad can come in and bunt when it is actually rational, that's fine. But we don't have an offensively devoid team, we need guys to get on base in front of our mashers.
Funny, we seemed to do much better in 2005 when we were "wasting" outs, than in 2006 when we were just waiting for guys to get on and then get brought in by a 3 run HR. Maybe sac bunts and hitting to the right side aren't wasting outs, but playing good solid baseball, doing the things that don't look good in spreadsheets but that win baseball games.

SABRSox

03-20-2007, 01:32 AM

Funny, we seemed to do much better in 2005 when we were "wasting" outs, than in 2006 when we were just waiting for guys to get on and then get brought in by a 3 run HR. Maybe sac bunts and hitting to the right side aren't wasting outs, but playing good solid baseball, doing the things that don't look good in spreadsheets but that win baseball games.

There's no definitive evidence either way that manufacturing runs gives teams an advantage or disadvantage. Last year, the Twins lead baseball in manufactured runs. The Yankees, who led baseball in runs scored, were in the middle of the pack in terms of manufactured runs. The White Sox were right behind them. Detroit was dead last in all of baseball.

There probably is a correlation between manufacturing runs and winning one-run ballgames, however. I guess if we expect the Sox to be in a bunch of close games, we'd want to be good at manufacturing runs. But this is a pretty powerful lineup, and hopefully we're not going to be involved in a lot of one-run games.

oeo

03-20-2007, 01:47 AM

There's no definitive evidence either way that manufacturing runs gives teams an advantage or disadvantage. Last year, the Twins lead baseball in manufactured runs. The Yankees, who led baseball in runs scored, were in the middle of the pack in terms of manufactured runs. The White Sox were right behind them. Detroit was dead last in all of baseball.

There probably is a correlation between manufacturing runs and winning one-run ballgames, however. I guess if we expect the Sox to be in a bunch of close games, we'd want to be good at manufacturing runs. But this is a pretty powerful lineup, and hopefully we're not going to be involved in a lot of one-run games.

It changes the whole game when you can get the early lead. Or, if you're down by a run or two, get those runs back without the long ball. There was an example of this in today's game. The Sox were down 1-0 in the second...Dye lead off with a double, Crede got him to third, and AJ hit a sac-fly. Up to this point, Greinke was pitching pretty well. Being able to manufacture those runs will be the difference in beating good pitchers like Santana, because you're not going to hit homeruns against him.

Oh, and being able to manufacture runs would have helped in extra innings last year. How many times did we lose in extra innings because all were trying to do was hit a homerun?

The Tigers' inability to manufacture runs is just another reason to believe that last year was a total fluke.

SABRSox

03-20-2007, 02:11 AM

It changes the whole game when you can get the early lead. Or, if you're down by a run or two, get those runs back without the long ball. There was an example of this in today's game. The Sox were down 1-0 in the second...Dye lead off with a double, Crede got him to third, and AJ hit a sac-fly. Up to this point, Greinke was pitching pretty well. Being able to manufacture those runs will be the difference in beating good pitchers like Santana, because you're not going to hit homeruns against him.

Oh, and being able to manufacture runs would have helped in extra innings last year. How many times did we lose in extra innings because all were trying to do was hit a homerun?

The Tigers' inability to manufacture runs is just another reason to believe that last year was a total fluke.

I think your assessment is flawed. First, there simply is no evidence that manufacturing runs helps or hinders a team's success. For every successful execution, I can name instances in which the Sox have got a runner into scoring position with no outs, advanced him to third, and then failed to get him home.

As for the Tigers, they won on pitching. I see no reason why those pitchers, with the exception of a pine tar less Kenny Rogers, would regress this season.

I have no problem with small ball. I'm not one of these people who believe that giving up outs is the worst thing you can do during the game. I believe that in certain situations, at certain points in the game it's a worthy gamble. But it's certainly not an offensive strategy to pursue throughout an entire game or season.

santo=dorf

03-20-2007, 06:07 AM

What's your point? I never said Erstad would make a good #2; I just said Anderson would not. Don't argue with things I didn't say.
I wasn't trying to refute you on saying Erstad was a good #2 man. I agree with you on what the #2 guy should be if the Sox want to go this route again, and base on his performance so far Erstad isn't the man. Ozzie currently has him penciled in and some of the no-doubters agree with Guillen's move.
Funny, we seemed to do much better in 2005 when we were "wasting" outs, than in 2006 when we were just waiting for guys to get on and then get brought in by a 3 run HR. Maybe sac bunts and hitting to the right side aren't wasting outs, but playing good solid baseball, doing the things that don't look good in spreadsheets but that win baseball games.
In 2005; Team won 99 games, scored 741 runs, allowed 645 runs.
In 2006; Team won 90 games, scored 868 runs, allowed 794 runs.

The reason we did "much better" in 2005 was due to the pitching, not the offense.

mjmcend

03-20-2007, 07:32 AM

As for the Tigers, they won on pitching. I see no reason why those pitchers, with the exception of a pine tar less Kenny Rogers, would regress this season.

I can think of a reason why they might regress and its the same reason the Sox pitchers fared much worse in 2006. All those innings in the postseason really add up. Verlander exceeded his previous high by 100 innings. Rogers is a year older. Roberston and Maroth had lower ERA's but similar WHIP's to their repective career averages, which suggests they could regress this year. Bonderman has been steadily getting better each year, and it should continue this year.

In short, I have no idea how the Tiger's starting 5 will do this year, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were worse. In fact, I am counting on it.

gfy
who the hell cares what Mauer and Crede did. People are talking about how Anderson showed improvement in the second half and I posted his pathetic stats for the final month of the season.

It's also hilarious that you think Mauer's .276 is comparable to Andersons .179

ondafarm

03-20-2007, 08:54 AM

Championship contenders can score runs in multiple ways. The 2006 Sox could mash with anybody, but did have some difficulty scoring runs in tight games. While you may call those outs wasted, I personally find a 2-1 pitcher's duel, where all three runs were manufactered the most exciting baseball game. I think Guillen likes Erstad because he will manufacture runs this year. I think that is also one of BA's problems. A lot of players go through slumps or have a difficult rookie season; the best players figure out how to still help their team while in a slump and they certainly don't take their batting woes out onto the field.

jabrch

03-20-2007, 08:59 AM

gfy

Thanks - IGNORE

soxfanatlanta

03-20-2007, 09:05 AM

the best players figure out how to still help their team while in a slump and they certainly don't take their batting woes out onto the field.

Are you stating that BA was playing poor defensive ball last year? He had some gaffes hitting the cutoff man, but that guy's D was solid.